Damage caused by scaffolding lorry
parcival
Posts: 949 Forumite
We live in a gated community with a pavement outside our house. This pavement belongs to our property and is about 3 meters wide.
The small block of flats next to our house was redecorated by contractors organised by the Management company that oversee the entire site. The decorating contractors required scaffolding to do the job.
We have noticed that the tarmac on our private pavement has sunk leaving dips that fill with water when it rains. We have asked the management company to repair (or pay for the repair) the damaged tarmac on the basis that it must have been caused by an exceptionally heavy vehicle (scaffolding lorry). They are refusing as they say we cannot prove it was caused in this way. We say that it would be unreasonable for us to have to prove it as the work went on for 3 months and we cannot be expected to be looking out of our window all day everyday.
The management company have said that our assertion is not unreasonable but as we cannot prove it they are not going to pay the £400 or so to get it repaired.
Is this something that would be appropriate for the small claims court and if so, what are the chances of success without definite proof.
The small block of flats next to our house was redecorated by contractors organised by the Management company that oversee the entire site. The decorating contractors required scaffolding to do the job.
We have noticed that the tarmac on our private pavement has sunk leaving dips that fill with water when it rains. We have asked the management company to repair (or pay for the repair) the damaged tarmac on the basis that it must have been caused by an exceptionally heavy vehicle (scaffolding lorry). They are refusing as they say we cannot prove it was caused in this way. We say that it would be unreasonable for us to have to prove it as the work went on for 3 months and we cannot be expected to be looking out of our window all day everyday.
The management company have said that our assertion is not unreasonable but as we cannot prove it they are not going to pay the £400 or so to get it repaired.
Is this something that would be appropriate for the small claims court and if so, what are the chances of success without definite proof.
0
Comments
-
We live in a gated community with a pavement outside our house. This pavement belongs to our property and is about 3 meters wide.
The small block of flats next to our house was redecorated by contractors organised by the Management company that oversee the entire site. The decorating contractors required scaffolding to do the job.
We have noticed that the tarmac on our private pavement has sunk leaving dips that fill with water when it rains. We have asked the management company to repair (or pay for the repair) the damaged tarmac on the basis that it must have been caused by an exceptionally heavy vehicle (scaffolding lorry). They are refusing as they say we cannot prove it was caused in this way. We say that it would be unreasonable for us to have to prove it as the work went on for 3 months and we cannot be expected to be looking out of our window all day everyday.
The management company have said that our assertion is not unreasonable but as we cannot prove it they are not going to pay the £400 or so to get it repaired.
Is this something that would be appropriate for the small claims court and if so, what are the chances of success without definite proof.
Do you have proof?
Photos of the scaffolding lorry parked on it?
Photos prior to the work showing no rain water pooling?
If not, then not worth taking to court.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
Why not claim straight off the scaffolding company if you have evidence they are liable?
Thinking they must have done it isn!!!8217;t enough.0 -
As I said in the original post, no I do not have proof although I have photo's of it undamaged before the work started and photo's of the damaged area.
The project was 3 months long so NO I was not standing outside with a camera for 90 days.
I was really asking if the court would award damages based upon the probability that it was caused by the scaf lorry....0 -
As I said in the original post, no I do not have proof although I have photo's of it undamaged before the work started and photo's of the damaged area.
The project was 3 months long so NO I was not standing outside with a camera for 90 days.
I was really asking if the court would award damages based upon the probability that it was caused by the scaf lorry....
If the photos showing it was fine were taken not long before the work started then this could be sufficient.
No one was asking you to spend 90 days outside with a camera. The developers opposite us allowed their lorries to park on the pavement which ruined it. When doing to school run etc... or just out and about and I spotted a lorry parking on it, I took a photo. The developer was made to re-do the pavement.Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
No court is going to award anything to anyone who is 'suffering' due to a few little puddles on their pavement when it rains.0
-
Why not?usefulmale wrote: »No court is going to award anything to anyone who is 'suffering' due to a few little puddles on their pavement when it rains.
If it rains and the surface has been correctly laid then that rainwater will run off.
If however that surface has been damaged and water is pooling up, not only could this lead to further damage in the long term, when the weather drops during winter, ice could well form in these dips and as this is on a pavement, it could present a hazard that never used to occur.0 -
usefulmale wrote: »No court is going to award anything to anyone who is 'suffering' due to a few little puddles on their pavement when it rains.
Ludicrous comment. Even I know that 'damages' are irrespective of value.0 -
As a matter of law, people are not usually liable for the acts of their contractors.
The concept of vicarious liability only applies to employees - not to contractors. The management company is not automatically liable for the negligence of its contractors.
As such I think you would have to claim against the scaffolding company directly. You could not succeed in a claim directly against the management company unless you could prove that the management company has been negligent.
If you can identify the scaffolding company, you could sue them. The test applied by the civil courts is balance of probability - i.e. could you prove it is more likely than not that the scaffolding company caused the damage and that they were negligent in doing so.0 -
The law on vicarious liability has moved on.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards