Builder damaged neighbours property - am I liable?

stuart45

I don't think the problem is the ability to find a spare part. It's probably that the gas fitters are refusing to do any work on it, because of the issues involved with them being the last gas safe fitter to have worked on the system.

ThisIsWeird

stuart45 said:

I don't think the problem is the ability to find a spare part. It's probably that the gas fitters are refusing to do any work on it, because of the issues involved with them being the last sas safe fitter to have worked on the system.

In which case, def not the OP's problem. 

FreeBear

stuart45 said:

I don't think the problem is the ability to find a spare part. It's probably that the gas fitters are refusing to do any work on it, because of the issues involved with them being the last gas safe fitter to have worked on the system.

And this is where the car analogy breaks down. A Gas Safe engineer can seemingly condemn a boiler boiler on a whim, and it is next to impossible to get another one in and do a repair (if it is even possible).

But not the OP's problem, and the neighbour can not expect or demand betterment out of it.

GDB2222

nottsphil said:

GDB2222 said:

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

Why would it surprise people?

If you ordered a private hire vehicle for a journey on which the driver caused a serious injury to a third party, would you be surprised to find that you have no liability?

It is a marked change in the previous law. 

Section62

GDB2222 said:

nottsphil said:

GDB2222 said:

There have been a couple of Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability in the last few years, and the OP is not liable. I know that will surprise people, and I’m not sure I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it is binding on all lower courts. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2021-0089-judgment.pdf

Why would it surprise people?

If you ordered a private hire vehicle for a journey on which the driver caused a serious injury to a third party, would you be surprised to find that you have no liability?

It is a marked change in the previous law. 

I've skim read that judgement, and looked around for analysis of how the judgement might affect cases like the OP's situation, but I haven't found anything helpful (yet).

The way I read the judgement it seems to be a clarification of when vicarious liability might apply, and not abolishment of vicarious liability entirely.  The circumstances are also very different - damage done to a neighbouring property is very clearly associated with the employment of contractor(s) to carry out work on a property, especially where the damage was done during a clearly defined construction activity.  Rape and sexual assault was never part of the employment of the person around which the quoted judgement applies.

Unless I've missed something, I wouldn't want to rely on that judgement (alone) to defend myself against a claim that my scaffolder had damaged the neighbour's property and that I was at least partly responsible for making sure the neighbour had restitution - either from my own pocket, the contractors, or one or another of the different insurers involved.

Note also that under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 there is a statutory liability on the applicant "to indemnify the respondent against any damage which may be caused to the servient land or any goods by the applicant or any of his associates which would not have been so caused had the order not been made" - if the judgement above has the effect suggested then the 'sensible' response perhaps is for everyone to forbid their neighbours from doing any building work on or over their land/property and require them to get an ANLA order instead.

The above isn't applicable unless an ANLA order is in place, but it does demonstrate that Parliament were of the view that it is the applicant (i.e. usually the owner/occupier of the dominant land) who has responsibility for damage caused by his associates - the responsibility doesn't pass to the associates.  That runs counter to the argument that you shouldn't be responsible for what your builders/contractors do - and to me it makes perfect sense that a neighbour should be able to simply hold their neighbour liable, rather than having to chase down contractors who they may not know the details of and through the poor choices made by someone else find that the contractor has no insurance and no assets to make a claim worthwhile.

From what I understand of the OP's case the scaffolder isn't disputing liability (they have admitted it) but rather it is a question of apportioning the cost of a replacement boiler between that liability and the betterment the neighbour would get.  Sounds to me like there is scope for enormous legal bills all round unless the parties can agree something sensible betwen them.