Car damaged by leaking car park - small claims?

Minrich

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?

What has this got to do with parachuting ? All Car Parks have signs up left at owners risk or similar or written into other documents . If this has not been pointed out to the car park user you could possibly have a case for damage to your car , but only if the sign or document hasn't pointed out the use of the car park .

Now if there was a wall built in the car park and it fell on your car due to defective mortar that would be different and would obligated the builder of the wall and the car park owner . If the water came from a tap running then that could be negligence but rainwater is quite different .

neilmcl

Minrich wrote: »

What has this got to do with parachuting ? All Car Parks have signs up left at owners risk or similar or written into other documents . If this has not been pointed out to the car park user you could possibly have a case for damage to your car , but only if the sign or document hasn't pointed out the use of the car park .

Now if there was a wall built in the car park and it fell on your car due to defective mortar that would be different and would obligated the builder of the wall and the car park owner . If the water came from a tap running then that could be negligence but rainwater is quite different .

Who said anything about rainwater?

colino

I take it the parking space isn't free, you pay for it either separately or rolled into other fees, so this will give you a stronger hand. Of course the repair cost is ridiculous. Get a quote from a good, recommended bodyshop, not a production-line one shackled to insurance work, and find out how much the repair and overall mop will cost.

patman99

Those signs are like the ones you see in dry cleaners. They are there to frighten you into not doing anything about damage to your possessions.

In reality, they cannot legally remove their obligations to protect your possession from damage other than that which is beyond their control.
For instance, they are not responsible for damage caused by another person hitting your car with theirs. But they are responsible for damage caused by their carpark to your car.
I.E. part of carpark falling on car or surface giving-way as you drive over it.
The caselaw is Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1970) EWCA civ 2.

facade

patman99 wrote: »

Those signs are like the ones you see in dry cleaners. They are there to frighten you into not doing anything about damage to your possessions.

In reality, they cannot legally remove their obligations to protect your possession from damage other than that which is beyond their control.
For instance, they are not responsible for damage caused by another person hitting your car with theirs. But they are responsible for damage caused by their carpark to your car.
I.E. part of carpark falling on car or surface giving-way as you drive over it.
The caselaw is Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1970) EWCA civ 2.

The summaries that I have looked up don't say that, the findings are that those conditions were not disclosed until after the money had been paid, (by a statement on the ticket that parking was subject to conditions on a poster that couldn't be seen at the time of purchase) and that therefore they could not form part of the contract.

I can't find the full transcript, so I've no idea how he was injured due to the carpark owners negligence, one reference says he was hit by another car whilst putting something in his boot.

chrishill16

Lots of replies, thanks everyone. I'll try to answer all of your questions, but it sounds as though they haven't been negligent and I'm going to have to suck it up and take the hit.

Not too sure about the signs that they've got up in the carpark. I don't live there any longer so can't check. There are lots of signs about parking penalties etc, but I don't recall seeing any about parking at your own risk. However, it sounds as though those signs (if they do exist) wouldn't absolve them from any liability, unless the damage was caused by a third party.

Thanks again for the replies, I really appreciate your advice.

Speaking of advice, can anyone recommend either a solicitor that would give me a free consultation, and/or a decent bodyshop in the Leeds area please?

Minrich

The damage on your car i have had on mine caused in exactly the same way . Bit like the way Stalagmites are formed , will be removed by very harsh cutting compound and a powered polisher . Get an experienced person to do it .

arcon5

chrishill16 wrote: »

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.

As long as its returned though in an acceptable condition it shouldn't be a problem.

Askk around, I can't see 'audi' colours being exclusive to just dealers

chrishill16

Minrich wrote: »

The damage on your car i have had on mine caused in exactly the same way . Bit like the way Stalagmites are formed , will be removed by very harsh cutting compound and a powered polisher . Get an experienced person to do it .

Hi, Audi had a look and said the paint had been stripped away. It sounds like you're saying the damage is on top of the paint, is that right? If so, when you say an experienced person do you mean a professional detailer?

bartelbe

I think it is reasonable to expect an underground carpark to be water tight and maintained to that standard. After all this isn't a public carpark, but a carpark which the OP is paying good money to a managment company for them to maintain properly.

It is bit like if the OP went on holiday and found their flat flooded, because the management company hadn't maintained the roof properly, and saying thecompany shouldn't be responsible.

It is the job of the management company to maintain the building to a reasonable standard. I think the building being water proof is a reasonable expectation.