Threatening preemptive letter from Barnet council about cost of damage to road - what are my rights?

Furts

In effect the council are firing a warning shot against today's human beings. We live in a world where countless people lack common sense, others could not care less about anyone other than themself, others think they are qualified to be builders because they have watched Kevin on Grand Designs and others think every problem in life is somebody else's problem - there is little concept of personal accountability.

That OP is defending the indefensible, or not prepared to face up to due diligence, duty of care and being neighbourly means it is for them to look in the mirror and ask questions.

OP has a duty to manage, control and inspect their builder - this is implied, this is common sense, and it is fundamental to the working of UK Law. OK they may have an issue with this, but accept matters because it is not going to change.

I will give an anecdotal example and pick my extension. Here I contacted my Insurance Broker and took out a policy to cover all eventualities during the building works. I then purchased sheets of 18mm plywood to protect the path and Heras fencing to cordon off areas. Spray paint , warning signs, and warning tape likewise. I then met the Highways Inspector and said "this is what I propose - do you have concerns for me to address?" This meeting was music to the chap's ears - he was overjoyed. The result was he went an extra mile past his role to help me.

All this was to respect my neighbours, visitors, the general public and the Highway land. Plus, I had insurance back up as a Plan B if things went wrong. Other people could do likewise but few do. Which neatly comes back to my opening lines.

marcosscriven

EachPenny wrote: »

Why should the council waste taxpayer's money finding out from you who your builder is (which could take months if you don't bother replying to them) then contact your builder and try and get them to pay for damage that you are liable for?

I'm not claiming they should waste time finding out - of course I am happy to tell them (and have in fact).

Section 133 gives the option of either recovering the costs from the landowner, or from the person who caused or was responsible for the damage.

Why should the council take the more difficult of those options?

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I would like it if they considered for all residents to share the risk of damage to the pavement, in the specific case that resident has made *all efforts to employ a good builder with insurance*.

I would be happy to pay a bit extra on my council tax so that, say, the old lady next door wouldn't be bankrupt if the builder she used accidentally damaged the pavement, and the builder's insurance refused to pay out. I *agree* if a resident shows contempt, hires 'cowboys' etc. that they should pay.

Irrelevant, but good that they are making people who cause damage to roads and footways pay for it.

It's not irrelevant if the company enforcing this now have a profit motive.

It isn't bullying. It is explaining the legal position and alerting you to the risk before work starts. I think most people would be happier with that - so they can discuss the issue with the contractor first - rather than getting a surprise large bill after the contractor has ruined the footway.

It isn't a 'claim', it is a statement of fact. If your contractor causes the damage then you are responsible if the council wishes to recover their expenses for repairing it.

By being a good highly rated client and ensuring your contractor doesn't cause any damage. Easy.

I've said over and over, I've done my best to ensure it's a good builder with insurance. But accidents do happen, and insurance doesn't alway pay out.

I very much doubt the council would let you 'choose', you are a sitting duck compared to a builder who might go bankrupt rather than pay for the damage they've caused. You will be liable, unless the builder does no damage. Section 133 is clear about that.

I agree - that's exactly what I wrote, and that's just what I'm worried about.

I think people have made good suggestions. The important thing is to get a good contractor and discuss the letter with them. Make sure they understand their responsibilities and that you would expect them to pay any bill you get.

I had already implemented those suggestions - and I've told my builder I do expect him to pay.

That is because there is no way to break that link, Section 133 is clear that you are responsible.

If you really push me for an answer, then you could promote private legislation in Parliament to exempt you from the provisions of Section 133. I don't think your Bill would get past first reading, and the cost of getting that far would probably pay for your the footways along your whole street to be resurfaced.

I think you are now clearly enjoying attempting to both mock me, and attempt to use your legal domain knowledge to intimidate. I don't tend to do the same when I find others in public forums asking about some details in my own professional domain. To suggest I might try to introduce legislation...

Unfortunatley that would be ultra vires, and also a mis-statement of the law. The council cannot amend Section 133 to make you responsible only if you haven't checked if your builder has insurance. It can only enforce the law as it stands. In this situation (because the work is on private land) the council cannot ask you to require the contractor to have insurance for what it does on the public highway.

I'm not asking them to lie or go beyond their powers - I was merely wishing that's the way it worked. You have made clear it doesn't work that way.

No. The message is "Work with your builder to make sure they don't damage the footway or road. If you aren't willing to do that, then you will be responsible for the bill."

Seems completely reasonable to me.

How do I work 'with' my builder to absolutely ensure nothing goes wrong? I can't, even he can't. He'll hire a lorry to bring in a skip, he can't be sure nothing will go wrong. Yes there's insurance, I've confirmed it - but insurance doesn't always pay out - you can't claim that it does.

So as you have enjoyed reiterating in a didactic tone my responsibilities under Section 133, I would be liable, and severely financially damaged, through an accident I had no control over, and did everything I could to mitigate. That doesn't seem to be very community spirited to me - though I'm sure you're going to come back and tell me I'm wrong.

Ant555

Bear in mind that it could be delivery trucks and wagons that cause damage so if you are having a conversation with your builder then make sure it covers anyone he subsequently engages to deliver bricks or equipment.

A neighbour near me had a load of stuff for an extension delivered by a crane type lorry and the stabilisers have left big square holes in the pavement.

Hope this helps.

Furts

usefulmale wrote: »

Section 41 of the Highways Act seems to cover the duty of the responsible authority to maintain the highways. Indeed, Barnet Council invite you to report any issues you may find regarding damage to the highway.

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/parking-roads-and-pavements/Roads-and-Pavements.html




Personally, I find the tone of that letter quite threatening. If, as the letter states, the council is taking a 'zero tolerance approach', I would expect every other road and footway in the borough to be in immaculate condition. Also, I would be taking my own photographic evidence on a daily basis starting today and I would be making heavy use of that reporting link I highlighted earlier after receiving a letter of that tone.

Conflict or confrontation are ways of dealing with matters. But there are also gentler ways that will give results. Using my anecdotal example in the previous post, when I met the Highways Inspector, I said "I have taken a set of photos which are automatically dated and timed. Would he like a copy, would he like to discuss them? Then " shall we walk the route and weigh up what we have?" By being considerate, and by being proactive, there was no conflict and no confrontation. Indeed the opposite was true - the Highways Inspector was a gem, and went out of his way to be helpful.

Furts

marcosscriven wrote: »

I've said over and over, I've done my best to ensure it's a good builder with insurance. But accidents do happen, and insurance doesn't alway pay out.

I said in an earlier post that you had the wrong end of the stick. Take this statement. Are you qualified to study the insurance policy undertaken by the builder? Do you know what may be excluded and all T&C and any weasel words therein? How will you know if the policy is cancelled during your works? What happens if it is not renewed during your works and so on.

In all fairness to you this may all be your specialism, and you may be on the ball with everything. However 99% of consumers will not be greatly bothered about checking out the insurance policy details and consequently your Council is setting out its' stall with these folks in mind.

marcosscriven

Furts wrote: »

I said in an earlier post that you had the wrong end of the stick. Take this statement. Are you qualified to study the insurance policy undertaken by the builder? Do you know what may be excluded and all T&C and any weasel words therein? How will you know if the policy is cancelled during your works? What happens if it is not renewed during your works and so on.

In all fairness to you this may all be your specialism, and you may be on the ball with everything. However 99% of consumers will not be greatly bothered about checking out the insurance policy details and consequently your Council is setting out its' stall with these folks in mind.

Insurance isn't my specialism, and you are correct I don't know all the T&Cs. I do happen to know the expiry date though.

But all of what you say is actually what I'm worried about - you mentioned about you yourself physically installing protections, but that's well beyond my DIY capability.

What is really in my control? As you seem to agree, I can't necessarily rely on insurance. I can do my best to find a rated builder, but even the best builders have accidents.

If I don't have the skills to install ply and fencing, you seem to be saying that I'm not a very nice person, and should 'look myself in the mirror', ignoring earlier posts where I said I do try to help in the community. Despite you being anonymous (I'm not - can easily look up my forum name), I don't find that very nice.

usefulmale

Furts wrote: »

Conflict or confrontation are ways of dealing with matters. But there are also gentler ways that will give results. Using my anecdotal example in the previous post, when I met the Highways Inspector, I said "I have taken a set of photos which are automatically dated and timed. Would he like a copy, would he like to discuss them? Then " shall we walk the route and weigh up what we have?" By being considerate, and by being proactive, there was no conflict and no confrontation. Indeed the opposite was true - the Highways Inspector was a gem, and went out of his way to be helpful.

I agree with what you say but it appears that you approached the council first via your method.

The OP councils opening salvo comes across as threatening, bullying and adversarial. If some people are cowed and submissive by such an approach then that's fine. Me, I give back what gets given and ALWAYS come back at bullies, wherever they may come from.

Furts

marcosscriven wrote: »

Insurance isn't my specialism, and you are correct I don't know all the T&Cs. I do happen to know the expiry date though.

But all of what you say is actually what I'm worried about - you mentioned about you yourself physically installing protections, but that's well beyond my DIY capability.

What is really in my control? As you seem to agree, I can't necessarily rely on insurance. I can do my best to find a rated builder, but even the best builders have accidents.

If I don't have the skills to install ply and fencing, you seem to be saying that I'm not a very nice person, and should 'look myself in the mirror', ignoring earlier posts where I said I do try to help in the community. Despite you being anonymous (I'm not - can easily look up my forum name), I don't find that very nice.

Trying to help in the community has nothing to do with being a considerate neighbour, or being respectful to the environment outside ones home. I respect my local environment - that is why I took precautions, that is why I met the Highways Inspector. But I also pick up the local litter - see I do care about matters! But I did not mention that because it is about as relevant as your "helping in the community".

You are not being proactive, and you are not reading and digesting what has been written. I reiterate (and others have said the same) I took out an insurance policy. Then coming onto levels of DIY skills, where is the skill in dropping sheets of plywood onto a path? Or asking a local tool hire centre to drop off some fence panels - these are supplied with feet and brackets and you simply lift them into place and tighten the clips with an adjustable spanner?

Taking these two examples you may now reflect why I said look in the mirror? You cannot expect everybody to accept responsibilities that you can bear yourself simply by being proactive and lateral thinking.

Davesnave

OP, you chose your username. If you think it's not anonymous enough, create a new account and choose a different one.

I'd suggest 'Spartacus.'

Furts

usefulmale wrote: »

I agree with what you say but it appears that you approached the council first via your method.

The OP councils opening salvo comes across as threatening, bullying and adversarial. If some people are cowed and submissive by such an approach then that's fine. Me, I give back what gets given and ALWAYS come back at bullies, wherever they may come from.

My council does not do these letters but there is a reason behind this. If one looks around areas of London and Birmingham - both large cities - then the building work on extensions is everywhere. The standards are frequently abysmal and the atmosphere is frequently of outright greed and selfishness. Other parts of the country are more gentile and the big city atmosphere has not pervaded! Hence here Councils are not sending out warning letters because the vast majority of residents are not taking the pee wee out of everybody!