ripped coat on building work fencing

Johnnytwostep

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Where does it say that?

Below the image of the fence

Manxman_in_exile

"The 'claims culture' that certain people are so fond of bemoaning focuses companies attention on doing things safely, and if they don't it hits them in the only place they will hurt. As such it should be welcomed.

But still, too many on here think responsibility only goes one way."


I tend to agree with this as a general comment. (Although not necessarily agreeing that the OP has a claim!)


I used to work in the NHS and lost count of the number of times I heard our Risk Manager have to explain that the reason we had to follow certain rules and procedures (in the face of "stupid Health and safety" rants) was precisely to stop us from being sued.

Manxman_in_exile

Sorry if my last post confusing but trying to quote ThumbRemote and not got the hang of quotes yet

cookie365

Why have we got a photo of a fence that isn't the one that's being discussed?

Wouldn't a photo of the actual miscreant fence be more useful?

daytona0

thriftymanc wrote: »

No, I don't want "compo". Someone else's shoddy property damaged my property and I want to know if I'm entitled to any help with costs of repair or replacement. "Compo" implies I want tons of money for no reason.

Compo is slang for "compensation"... If you "don't want compo" then why did you post this thread? To talk about your most and least favourite types of fence? :rotfl:

Banter aside, to what extent did you mitigate the circumstances by avoiding the fence/building site? Probably not as much as you could have done... To what extent did the pedestrian gap impact on the road users and would a larger pedestrian gap have caused issues for the motorists? Possibly, especially if you're in Manchester City Center where traffic is quite bad...

So I'm not convinced that you are 100% innocent in this issue, but I do agree that you have cause to complain. It is going to be one of them things where they'll probably just shrug their shoulders at you because that's what these companies do. Also, unless you have concrete proof then you're not going to have a very strong case (taking pictures of the damage and fence may help). So it is certainly worth firing off an email/letter and seeing what they say, as long as you don't spend too much time on it.

ThumbRemote

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Where does it say that?

The OPs second post, post #4 on this thread

lucy03

It'd realistically boil down in court to could the building company have reasonably foreseen that the fence could have torn clothing or injured a passer-by and had they acted in a reasonable manner whilst setting out the fencing? If their new path has a trip hazard or if the fence has a nail sticking out of it, then they'd likely lose a court claim IMO. Personally I'd take photos and look at them to see if the damage done could reasonably have been foreseen by the company to show some form of negligence.

unholyangel

I think thumbremote hit it on the head when he said:

It appears that their action, of putting up rusty fencing, is equally to blame.

Most slip/trip/fall claims are shared blame as the claimant has contributed to the accident by way of carelessness or even inappropriate footwear.

Generally any claim has to satisfy the following elements:
1. That a duty of care was owed
2. That they were in breach of that duty
3. That the breach caused the loss/damage
4. The damage was not too remote.

1 is usually straightforward (although they have went back and forward on which test should be applied). Paraphrasing, its generally anyone you could reasonably expect to be affected by your actions.

2 and 3 are usually the stumbling blocks - they can put forward policies for consideration to negate their liability. For example (just to give you an idea, not saying this is what happened in your case) they have someone who does a walk around the site boundary to check its secure etc several times a day. They could argue that someone else interfered with the fence after their last check. Generally they can't be held liable for the actions of a 3rd party if they have no control over them.

How much was the jacket? How old was it? I'd say your starting point is either the repair cost, or the remainder of the value. You do have a statutory duty to mitigate your losses though so perhaps ask a few places how much they would take to repair - you're not expected to bend over backwards, just take reasonable steps.

foxtrotoscar_2

Realistically though is there not the need for some proof that said fence caused the damage?

hollydays

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

Realistically though is there not the need for some proof that said fence caused the damage?

Of course, the op was videoing at the time ...
Where is the" roll eyes" thingy when you need it