Legal help needed please!
Discussion
slow_poke said:
Starting a small fire under circumstances previously described (summer, dry, near fence etc) and then not minding it to the extent that it was our OP who discovered it out of control and had to raise the alarm - sounds pretty negligent-y to me. Enough to put it before a judge anyhoo.
I have been there, with someone starting a fire inside a garage in a block.The advice I was given, by our insurers and qualified legal advice was attempting to sue for this was pointless. Unless there was a pattern of behavior it was not worth the cost.
The standard of proof required for negligence to succeed is very high.
The advice to download a template and issue a claim is great. Worth noting that the insurer of the other party will provide them with legal assistance, so the OP will be litigant in person against an insurance companies QC who deals with this day in day out.
Durzel said:
Maybe the neighbour’s insurers also did not insure the garden, like the OP.
I would personally claim against the neighbour. If they want to make their insurer a party to the claim then that’s on them. You don’t know if the insurers are liable as you have no idea to the scope of their liability, but you can certainly explore the negligence aspect on the part of the neighbour. The fact they’ve batted it back would suggest that they don’t believe they are liable, but of course that’s the first bite of the cherry.
There’s no reason the OP can’t run it through the courts as a litigant in person. There are templates online for letters before action, etc.
If the neighbour just thinks it’s a big fuss over nothing and their insurers rightly or wrongly are washing their hands of it I can’t see what other choice the OP has beyond sucking it up.
Yes they may not have cover for their property but will have 3rd party liability I would personally claim against the neighbour. If they want to make their insurer a party to the claim then that’s on them. You don’t know if the insurers are liable as you have no idea to the scope of their liability, but you can certainly explore the negligence aspect on the part of the neighbour. The fact they’ve batted it back would suggest that they don’t believe they are liable, but of course that’s the first bite of the cherry.
There’s no reason the OP can’t run it through the courts as a litigant in person. There are templates online for letters before action, etc.
If the neighbour just thinks it’s a big fuss over nothing and their insurers rightly or wrongly are washing their hands of it I can’t see what other choice the OP has beyond sucking it up.
nikaiyo2 said:
I have been there, with someone starting a fire inside a garage in a block.
The advice I was given, by our insurers and qualified legal advice was attempting to sue for this was pointless. Unless there was a pattern of behavior it was not worth the cost.
The standard of proof required for negligence to succeed is very high.
The advice to download a template and issue a claim is great. Worth noting that the insurer of the other party will provide them with legal assistance, so the OP will be litigant in person against an insurance companies QC who deals with this day in day out.
What a load of B*****s they weren’t insured then no?The advice I was given, by our insurers and qualified legal advice was attempting to sue for this was pointless. Unless there was a pattern of behavior it was not worth the cost.
The standard of proof required for negligence to succeed is very high.
The advice to download a template and issue a claim is great. Worth noting that the insurer of the other party will provide them with legal assistance, so the OP will be litigant in person against an insurance companies QC who deals with this day in day out.
Peter911 said:
I cannot believe some of the tosh on here.
The neighbours are insured.
They are negligent.
Lighting a bonfire and allowing it to get out of control is negligent.
Issue proceedings. They will lose the case and then the neighbours insurers have to pay.
The end.
This all day longThe neighbours are insured.
They are negligent.
Lighting a bonfire and allowing it to get out of control is negligent.
Issue proceedings. They will lose the case and then the neighbours insurers have to pay.
The end.
nikaiyo2 said:
The advice to download a template and issue a claim is great. Worth noting that the insurer of the other party will provide them with legal assistance, so the OP will be litigant in person against an insurance companies QC who deals with this day in day out.
Why would a QC's involvement necessarily be of concern?It is surely a matter of fact, and no matter what Mr(s) Fancy Pants QC says the OP would not be on the hook for the legal costs of their client on the small claims track.
Insurers will have retained counsel for sure, but that in and of itself should not be cause for alarm if you believe you have a strong case.
martinbiz said:
What a load of B*****s they weren’t insured then no?
Err it was a communal garage block, the lease holders do not have an insurable interest, so he obviously was not insured.As a director of the management company (at the time) we insured the block and were covered, but it put the premium up massively as there was a significant claim. If we had been able to claim against the person misusing the garage our premium would have reduced.
Our insurance paid out and repaired the garages in question, they also refused, after real legal advice not to pursue the tit who set fire to them, as it was not worth it. It might be that our insurers just did not want to expose themselves to the cost of action and the QC they arranged gave us advice to “put us” off.
Simply saying that their actions were stupid (and in our case specifically prohibited by the lease) was very far away from what was needed to secure a claim for negligence. We were basically told that all he needed to do was claim that he had done similar things in the past without problem.
It is the same as when flats above flats leak water, unless they have done it over and over again it’s not negligence and not the upstairs flats problem, even if they have bunged a plug hole and wandered off.
I am not looking for an argument as really I don’t care enough, just saying what happened to us a few years back.
Edited by nikaiyo2 on Tuesday 18th February 18:34
nikaiyo2 said:
Err it was a communal garage block, the lease holders do not have an insurable interest, so he obviously was not insured.
As a director of the management company (at the time) we insured the block and were covered, but it put the premium up massively as there was a significant claim. If we had been able to claim against the person misusing the garage our premium would have reduced.
Our insurance paid out and repaired the garages in question, they also refused, after real legal advice not to pursue the tit who set fire to them, as it was not worth it. It might be that our insurers just did not want to expose themselves to the cost of action and the QC they arranged gave us advice to “put us” off.
Simply saying that their actions were stupid (and in our case specifically prohibited by the lease) was very far away from what was needed to secure a claim for negligence. We were basically told that all he needed to do was claim that he had done similar things in the past without problem.
It is the same as when flats above flats leak water, unless they have done it over and over again it’s not negligence and not the upstairs flats problem, even if they have bunged a plug hole and wandered off.
I am not looking for an argument as really I don’t care enough, just saying what happened to us a few years back.
So all of that bears absolutely no resemblance to the OP’s predicament. So a Pointless postAs a director of the management company (at the time) we insured the block and were covered, but it put the premium up massively as there was a significant claim. If we had been able to claim against the person misusing the garage our premium would have reduced.
Our insurance paid out and repaired the garages in question, they also refused, after real legal advice not to pursue the tit who set fire to them, as it was not worth it. It might be that our insurers just did not want to expose themselves to the cost of action and the QC they arranged gave us advice to “put us” off.
Simply saying that their actions were stupid (and in our case specifically prohibited by the lease) was very far away from what was needed to secure a claim for negligence. We were basically told that all he needed to do was claim that he had done similar things in the past without problem.
It is the same as when flats above flats leak water, unless they have done it over and over again it’s not negligence and not the upstairs flats problem, even if they have bunged a plug hole and wandered off.
I am not looking for an argument as really I don’t care enough, just saying what happened to us a few years back.
Edited by nikaiyo2 on Tuesday 18th February 18:34
janesmith1950 said:
IANAL. Would the Rylands v. Fletcher principle apply here, if the items being burned were non-natural use of the land?
If so, negligence would not need to proven.
See paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/61.htmlIf so, negligence would not need to proven.
Red Devil said:
See paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/61.html
Not quite sure what you're trying to say?Also, assuming the fire was started deliberately, does ignis suus not apply (common law strict liability for fire spreading from your land to another's causing damage)?
janesmith1950 said:
Red Devil said:
See paragraphs 9, 10 & 11 - https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/61.html
Not quite sure what you're trying to say?janesmith1950 said:
Also, assuming the fire was started deliberately, does ignis suus not apply (common law strict liability for fire spreading from your land to another's causing damage)?
I think you may find the answer here - https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/fire-damage-pro...Bear in mind that this is E&W we are talking about. Scotland is another country...
Red Devil said:
I think you may find the answer here - https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/fire-damage-pro...
Bear in mind that this is E&W we are talking about. Scotland is another country...
Sorry, we're at cross purposes. What I meant was why did you link to that case and specific paragraphs? Are you saying it supports the notion that Rutland may apply, or not?Bear in mind that this is E&W we are talking about. Scotland is another country...
Also, same on ignis suss. Would it apply?
Presume you're a lawyer?
Rangeroverover said:
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774
fire spreading from one property to another the owner of the property where the fire started cannot be held liable, however it does have the word "accidental" in it
ask me how I know!!!
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=12b...fire spreading from one property to another the owner of the property where the fire started cannot be held liable, however it does have the word "accidental" in it
ask me how I know!!!
janesmith1950 said:
Red Devil said:
I think you may find the answer here - https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/fire-damage-pro...
Bear in mind that this is E&W we are talking about. Scotland is another country...
Sorry, we're at cross purposes. What I meant was why did you link to that case and specific paragraphs? Are you saying it supports the notion that Rutland may apply, or not?Bear in mind that this is E&W we are talking about. Scotland is another country...
Also, same on ignis suss. Would it apply?
Presume you're a lawyer?
The Transco case comprehensively reviewed the principle in Rylands
http://constructionblog.practicallaw.com/strict-li...
There can be little doubt that the fire in the OP's case was deliberately started.
Garden bonfires seldom spontaneously combust.
That just leaves the question of negligence. I reckon the OP will struggle to prove it.
That said, the terms of the Local Authority's order might be interesting.
What exactly were the materials and were there any specific instructions for their disposal?
e.g. any hazardous waste present?
martinbiz said:
Why is the so much irrelevant s**t being posted having your house catch fire and spreading to you next door neighbour is not a deliberate act FFS, the clue is in the word accidental
Unless your name is Mick or Mairead Philpott. 
janesmith1950 said:
Ryland doesn't require negligence. You still haven't commented on whether or why it would or wouldn't apply.
No, and I don't intend to. It's unnecessary and wouldn't add anything to the thread.PH already has plenty of folk who fail to do any background research before giving their 2p worth..
I have already posted a couple of links wherein those are better qualified than I am have referenced applicable cases.
They state quite clearly what the current state of play is on the matter.
IANAL, but negligence is not defined by whether you can prove a pattern of behaviour, although a pattern could help a case. The test for negligence requires, among other things, failing to show reasonable care with the probability of damage being reasonably foreseeable. Consider an example of someone starting a bonfire right under a tree and leaving it unattended. It spreads via the tree as a normal person would reasonably expect. That would seem negligent, whether or not the error was recklessness or mere stupidity.
The very specific facts of the case are important. There isn’t enough detail to really make a call. I believe the case could fail because only the neighbour holds all the information, but they probably won’t incriminate themselves. Their rogue spark story sounds hard to believe but how can you prove otherwise...
The very specific facts of the case are important. There isn’t enough detail to really make a call. I believe the case could fail because only the neighbour holds all the information, but they probably won’t incriminate themselves. Their rogue spark story sounds hard to believe but how can you prove otherwise...
Edited by Grrbang on Saturday 22 February 01:25
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff