We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Threatening preemptive letter from Barnet council about cost of damage to road - what are my rights?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
It seems you've had a lot of good practical advice in this thread, including from Furts.
I've never known a road of pavement to be damaged during building work. It's just a case of being careful!0 -
I have. The pavement, which is what this is primarily about, was slightly damaged when we built an extension and large lorries carrying ballast drove over it. I thought they'd damage the drive, but being younger and new to building work, that wasn't envisaged.shortcrust wrote: »It seems you've had a lot of good practical advice in this thread, including from Furts.
I've never known a road of pavement to be damaged during building work. It's just a case of being careful!
If I'd had a notification like the one received by the OP, I'd have thought about it and taken steps to avoid a problem, simple as that. I'd have assumed that the letter was phrased in 'direct' language because many people are not very good at interpreting the written word, or they might prefer to misinterpret, rather than accept they'd need to do more planning and take precautions.0 -
I just got off a call from someone at the council, who finally called me back 11 days later.
I can report that they were extremely helpful, friendly, and patient, and put all my fears to rest. They confirmed that they wouldn't chase me for the money, just as long as I've notified the builders, and they have insurance.
In fact, as it turns out, this is all moot anyway - road access to my property is solely from the rear (the front is unusual as it's just an alleyway), and there's no foot path between the road and my rear driveway anyway.
For posterity I'll restate that I do care about doing the right thing here, and I'm shocked about the moralising, judging, and ad hominem attacks going on here.0 -
shortcrust wrote: »I've never known a road of pavement to be damaged during building work. It's just a case of being careful!
You've possibly not been anywhere near Finchley, Hendon, Edgware etc lately then.
"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
That is great. But you would be an honourable exception to the typical approach adopted by residents when faced with an actual bill for damage to footways caused by builders.marcosscriven wrote: »I'm not claiming they should waste time finding out - of course I am happy to tell them (and have in fact).
You have (quite reasonably) explored options why you shouldn't be liable for a potential cost associated with your building works. You've done that prior to the work starting, prompted by the letter from the council. Imagine the situation if the council hadn't attempted to 'bully' you, and after your work was complete and the footway damaged then sprung the surprise on you that they wanted details of your builder - with a financial penalty payable by you if you decline to provide that information. A very large percentage of residents would either bin the letter, or respond with a simple 4+3 letter reply.
The council has the discretion not to pass on the charge and I would suggest is very unlikely to do so if it were to make an old lady bankrupt. In that case the costs would be absorbed by the council and in accordance with your wishes result in a little bit extra being added to your council tax bill.marcosscriven wrote: »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.
The reason for this is the recovery of expenses under Section 133 - if not paid voluntarily - would require the council to seek a magistrates court order requiring payment. If the council have not exercised their discretion to avoid bankrupting the old lady, then the magistrates would. It is not in the public interest for old ladies to be bankrupted to pay for highway damage caused by their builders. (Not least because the old ladies may be made homeless as a result of the bankruptcy and therefore have to be housed at the council's expense)
While we are on the subject of old ladies, one of the reasons why councils are adopting policies of this type is that careless builders damaging footways create trip hazards. Vulnerable people (including old ladies) are especially affected by carelessly carried out building work and damaged footways. I am sure you would be mortified if you discovered the damage caused by your builder had caused an old lady to trip and break a leg. Thus the letter is also indirectly alerts residents to the need to protect vulnerable people from the dangers caused by careless contractors.
There has been a 'profit motive' involved in councils enforcing highway law since the introduction of CCT in the 1990's. Whether the letter is printed by an in-house trading unit or an external contractor makes no difference to this. Ultimately, enforcement of Section 133 is an activity reserved to the council, not to a 'for profit' company.marcosscriven wrote: »It's not irrelevant if the company enforcing this now have a profit motive.
Indeed. But have you also considered other scenarios? What would happen for example if during the removal of your chimney breast, the builder causes part of your house to collapse onto your neighbour's house, garden, car, children, etc?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.
Construction work comes with risks attached. The council has tried to help you by warning you about one of the common causes of additional costs incurred by unwary householders.
Would you consider describing a reasonable warning letter from the council as a "Threatening preemptive letter" a form of intimidation as well?marcosscriven wrote: »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...
You complained that the answers previously given were not helpful and said "None of the suggestions show me how to break the link between the possible demand for payment from my friendly council to myself."
I (reluctantly) suggested the only option available which would meet your requirements. It was not intended to be in any way intimidatory.
Furts and others have already covered this. And as your phone conversation with the council confirms, so long as you've taken reasonable steps (and could document this) they are not going to take draconian enforcement action against you.marcosscriven wrote: »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.
I took the time to give a full and comprehensive response to your enquiry and address other issues which had arisen during the discussion. I am sorry that you didn't accept my attempt to help you in the spirit in which it was intended.marcosscriven wrote: »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."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
The council has the discretion not to pass on the charge and I would suggest is very unlikely to do so if it were to make an old lady bankrupt. In that case the costs would be absorbed by the council and in accordance with your wishes result in a little bit extra being added to your council tax bill.
That wasn't clear to me from the letter at all - in fact, it felt likely to be the opposite. I posted the positive outcome of the phone call for balance and fairness - if the letter had explained this, none of my worries here would have transpired.The reason for this is the recovery of expenses under Section 133 - if not paid voluntarily - would require the council to seek a magistrates court order requiring payment. If the council have not exercised their discretion to avoid bankrupting the old lady, then the magistrates would. It is not in the public interest for old ladies to be bankrupted to pay for highway damage caused by their builders. (Not least because the old ladies may be made homeless as a result of the bankruptcy and therefore have to be housed at the council's expense)
Again - that wasn't clear to me from the letter. Now that verbally the council have told me this, I feel a lot better about it. I don't think its wrong of me to be concerned that large institutions can easily descend into Kafkaesque situations, without a human face expressing moderation.While we are on the subject of old ladies, one of the reasons why councils are adopting policies of this type is that careless builders damaging footways create trip hazards. Vulnerable people (including old ladies) are especially affected by carelessly carried out building work and damaged footways. I am sure you would be mortified if you discovered the damage caused by your builder had caused an old lady to trip and break a leg. Thus the letter is also indirectly alerts residents to the need to protect vulnerable people from the dangers caused by careless contractors.
Again, I find myself in agreement with you. My issue was really about the sharing of reasonable risk within a community (in this case a council). I would indeed be mortified if the old lady next door (who I do know and help out) were harmed. But other than not doing the work at all (which is just a chimney removal, not a massive extension), I don't see how I can personally do anything other than choose a good builder with insurance.There has been a 'profit motive' involved in councils enforcing highway law since the introduction of CCT in the 1990's. Whether the letter is printed by an in-house trading unit or an external contractor makes no difference to this. Ultimately, enforcement of Section 133 is an activity reserved to the council, not to a 'for profit' company.
That I didn't know - looked it up, stands for 'Compulsory Competitive Tendering' apparently. I'll see if I can take the time to learn more about it.Indeed. But have you also considered other scenarios? What would happen for example if during the removal of your chimney breast, the builder causes part of your house to collapse onto your neighbour's house, garden, car, children, etc?
Construction work comes with risks attached. The council has tried to help you by warning you about one of the common causes of additional costs incurred by unwary householders.
Ok - thanks for worrying me even more Not only am I going to be a horrible person trashing the highway, I'll be maiming children with my building work! I need a lie-down, or maybe just a 'look in the mirror'.Would you consider describing a reasonable warning letter from the council as a "Threatening preemptive letter" a form of intimidation as well?
No - intimidating who?You complained that the answers previously given were not helpful and said "None of the suggestions show me how to break the link between the possible demand for payment from my friendly council to myself."
I (reluctantly) suggested the only option available which would meet your requirements. It was not intended to be in any way intimidatory.
Ok - thank you. I'm glad you didn't mean it that way.Furts and others have already covered this. And as your phone conversation with the council confirms, so long as you've taken reasonable steps (and could document this) they are not going to take draconian enforcement action against you.
Furts took the time to say I was not "decently minded", and that my actions were cause for me to "look in the mirror". That seems to me to be mean, and not fair. I guess it doesn't seem to be to you.I took the time to give a full and comprehensive response to your enquiry and address other issues which had arisen during the discussion. I am sorry that you didn't accept my attempt to help you in the spirit in which it was intended.
Thank you again for explaining no malice was intended.0 -
It does, and they do.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.
But Section 41 only covers the general duty to maintain, it says nothing about a requirement to fill in potholes or provide billiard table quality surfaces.
In the context of Section 41 the word 'maintain' means a duty to keep the highway open and passable in (relative) safety. So for example if the road was full of two foot deep potholes making it impossible to drive along it then the Highway Authority would be in breach of its general duty to maintain. There is then a huge grey area between 'billiard table' and 'impassable'. On that scale, a few isolated potholes would be deemed to be very close to 'billiard table'.
That would be comparing apples and oranges. The council are not asking residents to repair the footway outside their home as part of any building works, they are making it clear the householder has a responsibility to try and ensure their contractor doesn't cause damage.usefulmale wrote: »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.
A fair comparison would be to expect the council to have a zero tolerance approach to their own contractors causing damage to footways. I'm sure if a Barnet resident reported a council contractor's vehicle causing such damage the council would be quick to recover the cost of repairs from them.
As for 'immaculate condition' you perhaps need to have a look at Section 58 of the Highways Act.
As an analogy, there is no law requiring a householder to maintain their house in an immaculate condition, but the law may step in if you allow it to deteriorate to a point where it is a danger to you or others. And there is nothing in law granting a right to any third party allowing them to throw a brick through one of your windows just because the paint is peeling and the gutter leaks a bit. It would still be damage the householder is entitled to expect the miscreant to pay for - if they can be traced.
If done to a reasonable extent that would be very public spirited of you.usefulmale wrote: »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.
But by the sound of it your intent would be some form of 'revenge'. If you used the facility excessively and vexatiously the council has the right to withdraw the service from you. Furthermore, if it developed into some form of campaign against the council (as these things often do), any council has the right to refuse to have any dealings with you other than through a specific named officer (usually a senior manager). The next step along that road could be legal action to restrain your contact with the council, with the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. Before 'kicking off' you might want to consider how far you would be willing to go along that route.
As Furts and others have explained, it is far more productive to take the letter in the spirit it is intended and treat the council's officers as people who want to help you, rather than some kind of enemy. "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Equally, if the letter had explained that then people (not necessarily yourself) would just ignore it and thrown it in the bin. Unfortunately in the society we now live in, polite requests usually get ignored - hence the need for things like supermarket car pars to carry warnings of hell and damnation if you choose to park in a blue badge or 'parent and child' bay when not entitled to do so.marcosscriven wrote: »That wasn't clear to me from the letter at all - in fact, it felt likely to be the opposite. I posted the positive outcome of the phone call for balance and fairness - if the letter had explained this, none of my worries here would have transpired.
I think you would find it far more Kafkaesque if you recieved a letter from the council after the work informing you that you were expected to pay considerable costs for something you were not aware you might be liable for.marcosscriven wrote: »Again - that wasn't clear to me from the letter. Now that verbally the council have told me this, I feel a lot better about it. I don't think its wrong of me to be concerned that large institutions can easily descend into Kafkaesque situations, without a human face expressing moderation.
Other than the issues already mentioned, another example might be that if damage was caused, you contacted the council immediately to inform them and thus reduce the risk of an old lady being hurt.marcosscriven wrote: »Again, I find myself in agreement with you. My issue was really about the sharing of reasonable risk within a community (in this case a council). I would indeed be mortified if the old lady next door (who I do know and help out) were harmed. But other than not doing the work at all (which is just a chimney removal, not a massive extension), I don't see how I can personally do anything other than choose a good builder with insurance.
Other people - in the absence of the letter - might do nothing, and still be tutting to themselves a year later that it was "about time the bl**dy council came and repaired the footway".
Repeating the 'look in the mirror' suggests you see this part of my post as some kind of criticism. It wasn't. It was alerting you to the point that you as a householder (and temporarily a construction client) have a whole raft of duties and responsibilities, many of which are not things you can insure yourself against.marcosscriven wrote: »Ok - thanks for worrying me even more Not only am I going to be a horrible person trashing the highway, I'll be maiming children with my building work! I need a lie-down, or maybe just a 'look in the mirror'.
The issue of Section 133 is - in comparison to some of the others - a very minor and easily dealt with one.
Every year many people (including innocent passers by) are seriously injured or killed as a result of construction work. It is no laughing matter. You might want to familiarise yourself with the CDM Regulations if you aren't already.
The council. They might be a large Kafkaesque organisation, but that doesn't make them immune from being unfairly criticised.marcosscriven wrote: »No - intimidating who?marcosscriven wrote: »Ok - thank you. I'm glad you didn't mean it that way.marcosscriven wrote: »Furts took the time to say I was not "decently minded", and that my actions were cause for me to "look in the mirror". That seems to me to be mean, and not fair. I guess it doesn't seem to be to you.
Given the subject of the thread, and the above points, could I politely suggest you perhaps consider whether you have a mild propensity to see hostility and criticism where none was intended.marcosscriven wrote: »Thank you again for explaining no malice was intended.
I offer that as a suggestion because it might assist you to have that awareness during your dealings with the builder. The householder/builder relationship is often fraught and the key to a positive outcome for your project is to ensure that relationship is kept as positive as possible.
If the builder says something you feel is hostile or critical of you or your home, then it is best to count to 100 before responding. "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards