Am I being unreasonable?

PasturesNew

I'd say they're cheeky - the builder probably broke some H&S rule about marking off dangerous areas... but maybe he wasn't even told the EA was arriving.

I'd say it's not the OP's bill to pay. Somebody has to pay, but as the builder was there doing work anyway it probably only took and hour or so extra... and it should have been covered over; whether the builder or the EA is most at fault I've no guess at.

Turnbull2000

The LA and builders broke health and safety at work rules. It's negligence on their part. Not your problem.

societys_child

I've worked in many houses during renovation. Never seen anyone erect barriers or warning signs indicating that a floorboard has been lifted. This just gets more and more stupid.

pararct

societys_child wrote: »

I've worked in many houses during renovation. Never seen anyone erect barriers or warning signs indicating that a floorboard has been lifted. This just gets more and more stupid.

I suspect you have also never heard of a risk assessment or method statement either then?

Firms with less than 5 employees need not write a H&S Policy, moving on from that there was probably no legal requirement to erect safety barriers then given the few people expected to be working on the site.

Trouble is this makes the builder no less culpable in the eyes of the law as he still has a duty of care. The best practice would to have denied entry to anyone with no business to be on the site. As the builder had a duty of care his liability insurance will cover any problems (provided of course he had some) but the Letting agent (as him employer) would have performed due diligence and ensured this wouldn't he?

societys_child

I take it the op was wearing the statutory safety equipment (a helmet at least). If not, I don't think he has a leg to stand on . . .

On a more serious note, was the builder expecting the general public to be traipsing around?

roboticpink

societys_child wrote: »

I take it the op was wearing the statutory safety equipment (a helmet at least). If not, I don't think he has a leg to stand on . . .

On a more serious note, was the builder expecting the general public to be traipsing around?

Not the general public, no, but he knew we were coming

I wouldn't expect a warning sign in a house renovation but I would have expected the agent who showed us around to have notified us that it might be a bit dangerous upstairs as there were floorboards missing. The letting agent is claiming she said this, but we know she didn't...

IronWolf

Its not your problem and their insurance may cover it.

Where you even a tenant at the time? I would threaten to counter sue for injury, hopefully scares them off

jc808

Tell them to go poke it, cheeky !!!!s

jjlandlord

roboticpink wrote: »

I don't want to claim for my ankle - it was only for a day it hurt, we didn't go to the doctors and I don't like this compensation culture we live in...

I don't like it either. But the fact is that if you don't take it into account and cover your backside you will end up on the wrong side of the stick.

societys_child wrote: »

I've worked in many houses during renovation. Never seen anyone erect barriers or warning signs indicating that a floorboard has been lifted. This just gets more and more stupid.

If you have 2-3 people only working there it might be ok. but then either do not allow others to access the work area, or only when you guide them through.

societys_child wrote: »

I take it the op was wearing the statutory safety equipment (a helmet at least). If not, I don't think he has a leg to stand on . . .

On the contrary. Imo, it is for whomever is responsible for the site not to allow anyone on site without safety equipment, to make sure it is safe, and to erect warning signs to make sure everyone is aware.

Here I do think that the builders and the letting agent were negligent in failing to ensure safety of an expected visitor.

ceridwen

The one thing I am wondering is what date OP was promised they could move into the house by and what proof there is of this date in writing.

I am wondering whether the house was due to have been finished before the date this accident happened - therefore it "couldnt have happened" iyswim (ie even though it obviously did) because some written letter somewhere to OP states "The work will be finished by x date" and OP didnt make this visit to the house until AFTER "x date". Therefore the accident only happened because the work was "running late" on finishing.

Therefore there may be a sorta counter-claim there for "Why wasnt the work finished on time? If it had been = then the accident couldnt have happened in the first place".

JUst my thoughts FWIW - and maybe OP hasnt had a promise about what date the work would be done by...