Car damaged by leaking car park - small claims?

arcon5

Mitigating losses would also involve receiving a few quotes, not just an inflated one from a main dealer.
I suspect a local independant body shop would be able to turn this figure in to a fraction of what audi has quoted.

chrishill16

arcon5 wrote: »

Mitigating losses would also involve receiving a few quotes, not just an inflated one from a main dealer.
I suspect a local independant body shop would be able to turn this figure in to a fraction of what audi has quoted.

The car is leased through Audi and I assumed that when it comes to handing the car back they'd know if the work had been done elsewhere. It's also an 'Audi colour' so I wasn't sure anyone else would be able to match it. If a local indy body shop can do this then I'd be happy for them to quote. Just didn't think it was possible.

facade

chrishill16 wrote: »

The damage was already done when I returned to driving. I accept that they weren't to know that this was happening however.

If they didn't know about the dripping, then they aren't negligent.
If you told them, but didn't move your car, then they aren't negligent.

Bit catch 22 really.

Negligence would have to hinge on the cause of the flooding above, and whether it was due to a lack of necessary maintainance/inspection.

chrishill16

facade wrote: »

If they didn't know about the dripping, then they aren't negligent.
If you told them, but didn't move your car, then they aren't negligent.

Bit catch 22 really.

Negligence would have to hinge on the cause of the flooding above, and whether it was due to a lack of necessary maintainance/inspection.

Thanks for the reply. I moved my car forward so that the water was no longer dripping onto it, but obviously by that point it was already too late. All along I've been assuming that I should be able to park my car without it being damaged by a leak in their building. Fair enough if someone else had bashed it with a another car door for example, but I just thought it was reasonable to not expect any damage to be due to a fault in their car park. Thanks again.

neilmcl

chrishill16 wrote: »

The damage was already done when I returned to driving. I accept that they weren't to know that this was happening however.

In that case I don't see that you have a case for compensation. If you accept that they couldn't have known then it's a reasonable expectation that they're not negligent.

It's just one of those things, unfortunately, which is why you have insurance.

DUTR

neilmcl wrote: »

In that case I don't see that you have a case for compensation. If you accept that they couldn't have known then it's a reasonable expectation that they're not negligent.

It's just one of those things, unfortunately, which is why you have insurance.

On top of, there are often if not always signs showing that you park your car at your own risk.
Had the OP had wax on the car then the hydrophobic behaviour of the panels the water would have just run off.

Minrich

No chance of a success with this claim ..... Every concrete car park leaks water , Car parks are left at owners risk . Are there signs up advising you of this ? That may be your only chance .

neilmcl

Minrich wrote: »

No chance of a success with this claim ..... Every concrete car park leaks water , Car parks are left at owners risk . Are there signs up advising you of this ? That may be your only chance .

Disclaimers like these are fine if the car was stolen or broken into, or any other form of malicious damage, but if they were damaged via a negligent action then they wouldn't absolve the property owner from their obligations.

DUTR

Woodchopper1 wrote: »

So your saying if someone when parachuting as long as there was a sign saying you do so at your own risk, they can give you a defective chute?

They can't give a defective chute though

facade

Woodchopper1 wrote: »

So your saying if someone when parachuting as long as there was a sign saying you do so at your own risk, they can give you a defective chute?

Of course they can, as long as they didn't know that it was defective.

If it were one of those Parachute for charity type companies, they would likely have to show robust records of safety checks etc at the inquest, and if the checks should have picked it up, then they would be negligent.