We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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
12346»

Comments

  • EachPenny wrote: »
    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.

    This is what Furts wrote:
    Furts wrote: »
    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.

    I can't see how you can say that's not hostile.
  • Aylesbury_Duck
    Aylesbury_Duck Posts: 15,695 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    That's not hostile. Given the detail you've gone into on the situation and your stance on it, I would say that it's a fair comment.
  • That's not hostile. Given the detail you've gone into on the situation and your stance on it, I would say that it's a fair comment.

    You're agreeing I'm a bad person that needs to "look in the mirror"? Thanks Aylesbury.
  • Aylesbury_Duck
    Aylesbury_Duck Posts: 15,695 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    You're agreeing I'm a bad person that needs to "look in the mirror"? Thanks Aylesbury.
    No, I'm agreeing with Furts' opinion that you were not prepared to face up to due diligence and your own duty of care - hence the "look in the mirror" bit. That doesn't make you a bad person, it's my view that you've approached this situation in the wrong way.

    That's twice you've inferred something that wasn't implied. I find myself agreeing with this:
    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.
  • No, I'm agreeing with Furts' opinion that you were not prepared to face up to due diligence and your own duty of care - hence the "look in the mirror" bit. That doesn't make you a bad person, it's my view that you've approached this situation in the wrong way.

    That's twice you've inferred something that wasn't implied. I find myself agreeing with this:

    I've repeatedly shown that I've ensured the builder is well rated, and that they have £1m insurance. I've notified the building regs of the work well in advance. It turns out there's no path there between the road and my gate. And you're saying I'm not facing due diligence.

    The phrase to tell someone to "look in the mirror" clearly means to tell someone they are a bad person. That's not an inference.
  • EachPenny
    EachPenny Posts: 12,239 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    You're agreeing I'm a bad person that needs to "look in the mirror"? Thanks Aylesbury.
    If I may hold a mirror up for you then....

    You came to the forum seeking advice. You've received a variety of advice and opinion, the majority view being that the council's letter is not unreasonable and the householder should bear some responsibility. The advice has gone further and suggested ways in which you can work with the builder to minimise risk, and things you might want to check such as the builder's insurance cover.

    Taking an unscientific sample of posts, it would appear that your use of the 'thanks' button has been limited to the one poster whose advice can be summarised as "Start a war with the council".

    Wise people with much experience of dealing with councils have suggested that starting a war with the council will not assist you in what you want to achieve.

    That is the 'mirror'. What do you see in it?

    BTW, "look in the mirror" doesn't mean "you are a bad person". It is a suggestion that someone pauses, takes a look at an issue from a different perspective, then reflects on their original position.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
  • Furts
    Furts Posts: 4,474 Forumite
    Moving forward, which is what one really wants to do with any building project, have you got all the subsequent interfaces arranged with the council? A Structural Engineer for the chimney breast removal/support/design? Then meetings called by you to meet the Inspector regarding the work being done? Then the Final Inspection and subsequent issue of a Completion Certificate? Procedures vary from one council to another so over to you here.

    Party Wall Act - again over to you on where you stand.

    Management, Inspection, and quality - you might say "it is only a chimney breast removal" and dismiss this, or there may be other works. But also there are properties in London where this is justified.

    CDM Regulations - you may say that all responsibility rests with the builder. Fine if you have undertaken these discussions but to protect your position you would be prudent to have written proof that all this is buttoned up.

    It is not my intention to drag up past replies but the CDM Regs do raise a small concern. The Risk Assessment and Method Statement should include access, protection, and the type of issue raised by the Council in their letter. Which means a default reply to the Councils letter could be a polite acknowledgement together with sections of your Specification or your builder's CDM responsibilities covering these very areas. Of course this does not prevent damage, but it does show your council that you are aware of your legal responsibilities, and your builders legal responsibilities. Also that you are a clued up, conscientious resident.
  • robatwork
    robatwork Posts: 7,268 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    But if I hire a good highly rated builder, and they decide to bring in a skip, and that lorry damages the road, how on Earth am I meant to prevent or control that?

    I've read the whole thread.

    I am glad the council have allayed your fears somewhat.

    However from your comment above I am not sure you are really ready for home ownership. Do you really not accept responsibility for what your agent (the builder) does to public property while working on your behalf at your home?

    Feel free to accuse me of didactic ad hominism but please address my question.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.