Bellway & Damage from roof tile

NaturalBornHustler

Hi all

This is my first post and it is on behalf of a friend who needs some assistance

The recent storms (St Jude) blew a roof tile away from his flat and landed on his mint Ford Escort RS Cosworth

Luckily the damage could have been far worse but it was enough to break a heart or two!

The roof tile landed on the windscreen and bounced off the bonnet

The damaged parts were:

Bonnet
Windscreen
Wing

For those who may or may not know, all RS parts are discontinued and no longer produced by Ford. The used parts market has seen prices of body panels rocket over the past few years

The car was transported to a bodyshop and the repair work was carried out (with some help from sourcing parts from PassionFord and other Ford enthusiast forums!)

My friend has decided not to go through his own insurance but to get all costs back from Bellway (the property management company).

The bill comes to around £2400 and the incident was logged with Bellway the day it happened

What would be the best way in approaching this situation?


I will write a letter (on his behalf) however what should be mentioned in the letter (apart from enclosing the invoice and asking them to cough up)?

I am hoping the annual service charges (which include building insurance) should cover such incidents however I seem to remember "acts of god" causing all sorts of loop holes with insurers refusing to pay out!

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Regards

---lee---

Unless Bellway have been in some way negligent, that is the roof was in an obvious state of disrepair, constructed in a substandard way - or they had been notified it was in a dangerous condition etc, I would be very surprised if Bellway would be in anyway liable.

This is what car insurance is for.

colino

I'm sure I read recently that the Act of God thing is complete baloney made up by cheap insurers. How else would you be able to claim after a storm or a flood?
Difficult thing is with tiles though as few roof tiles can be said to be storm proof with the minimal fixings they have from new.
Hope they are a decent outfit and cough up for you.

NaturalBornHustler

colino wrote: »

I'm sure I read recently that the Act of God thing is complete baloney made up by cheap insurers. How else would you be able to claim after a storm or a flood?
Difficult thing is with tiles though as few roof tiles can be said to be storm proof with the minimal fixings they have from new.
Hope they are a decent outfit and cough up for you.

heres hoping!
Bellway seem to be rather big however they arent the best from what I hear!

NaturalBornHustler

Scrootum wrote: »

Why would Bellway be liable?

As a leaseholder for the property, the annual service charges incorporate building insurance which I hope includes such incidents as these? There is always car insurance to claim from but I am sure there will be an excess to pay...

Horizon81

Gutted to hear that about such a brilliant car. At least it got sorted (with great expense).

Isn't this an example of why we have buildings insurance? What if it were a freehold property? The question is not whether Bellway were negligent, but rather does the insurance policy (which I understand is arranged by the leaseholder) cover the damage?

Horizon81

He isn't a 3rd party though is he. He's living in a leasehold flat and contributes to the building insurance. It's not as if the tile fell off a neighbours roof.

Aretnap

colino wrote: »

I'm sure I read recently that the Act of God thing is complete baloney made up by cheap insurers. How else would you be able to claim after a storm or a flood?

You're confusing two completely different things - insurance and liability.

The OP isn't trying to claim from his insurance but from the property company. Insurance doesn't come into it - the property company only has to pay for the damage if it was caused through their negligence. If they didn't maintain the roof to a reasonable standard causing the tiles to become unsafe, then they would be liable for the damage caused by the tiles. However, if the tiles blew off in the worst storm for 20 years (an act of God, you might say) and there was nothing the property company could have reasonably done that would have prevented it, then there would be no negligence on their part and they wouldn't have to pay for any damage.

If the OP wants to claim against his own insurance policy then it's not a case of acts of God, but a question of what the policy covers. If it covers storm damage, it will pay. If it doesn't cover storm damage, it won't. (Storm damage isn't a standard exclusion on comprehensive car insurance policies, so if he's fully comp he will normally be covered)

colino

Hi OP, found the article, but unfortunately doesn't sound good on a chance of a claim on their insurance. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/oct/28/st-judes-storm-house-vehicle-travel-affected

Retrogamer

It seems strange that if you park your car on a hill, and the handbrake fails and it hits another, that the vehicle insurance company will pay out regardless of negligence being present or not, but suddenly the rules that govern liability change as soon as it's no longer motor vehicles.

Surely these kinds of decisions should be consistent

Aretnap

Retrogamer wrote: »

It seems strange that if you park your car on a hill, and the handbrake fails and it hits another, that the vehicle insurance company will pay out regardless of negligence being present or not, but suddenly the rules that govern liability change as soon as it's no longer motor vehicles.

Surely these kinds of decisions should be consistent

The two situations are quite different though. If a car rolls down a hill of its own accord it must be because the handbrake was either not set correctly or it was in poor condition. While that doesn't by itself prove negligence on the part of the driver, it at least means there is good reason to suspect it. But the roof tile didn't fall off of its own accord - it was blown off by a freak storm, and that doesn't lead to much suspicion of negligence on the part of the building owner. If it had dropped off on a calm day with no external interference the situations would be more comparable and the OP's friend would be in a stronger position.

Or looked at from the other angle, if your car was washed down the street by a freak flash flood and it collided with someone else's car/home/wall that would be more comparable to a tile blowing off in a freak storm - and your insurer would definitely not pay out for the damage caused by your car in that situation. So there isn't necessarily a lack of consistency.