Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Damage to vehicle in car park - liability?

1,133 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 10:55:02 AM3/6/12
to
A car parked in a car park attached to a small private block of apartments
suffers damage as a result of a 2 metre branch breaking from a tree. The
branch falls and strikes the top of the windscreen, badly damaging the
rubber surround of the windscreen and rendering it non-waterproof.
Thankfully the windscreen itself is intact.

Since there is no sign along the lines of "the management does not accept
liability for any damage caused..." anywhere in the car park, might the
management company be liable for the cost of repair?

TIA

Peter Crosland

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 11:40:02 AM3/6/12
to
"Bob" <b...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jj5bqp$ec3$1...@dont-email.me...
They are only liable if it can be proved that they were negligent. In any
case notices such as the one you mention provide no protection to the owner
of the land against a claim for negligence.

Regards from

Peter Crosland


Chris R

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 11:50:02 AM3/6/12
to

>
>
> "Peter Crosland" wrote in message
> news:DrydnYtVMc8qocvS...@brightview.co.uk...
I like the signs saying "cars parked at owner's risk". As it's unlikely that
all the cars will have one owner, grammatically it can only refer to the
owner of the land, which I think is generous of him.
--
Chris R


Martin Bonner

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 12:00:04 PM3/6/12
to
Only if they were negligent.

Was there any reason to expect the branch to fall off, or was it just "one of those things"?

Hugh - Was Invisible

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 12:10:10 PM3/6/12
to
IANAL

So far as I am aware there would be no strict liability.

It would be necessary to establish that those responsible for the tree had
failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that it was not likely to cause
damage. Unless the branch had been dead or damaged for some time or was
obviously dangerous or the tree were diseased this would be difficult to
do.

Some years ago I led a team handling claims for a nationwide parking
company. In one car park was a tree that the company wanted to fell
because of complaints from customers of tree debris and bird excrement
decorating their cars. The tree was the subject of a tree preservation
order and in the absence of any evidence of disease or other problems the
council refused an application to fell the tree. Not much later a storm
blew the whole tree down on to a number of cars. We repudiated the car
owners claims on the basis of evidence that there was no problem with the
tree. As a matter of interest I now believe that IF there had been any
liability it would have rested with the council for refusing the
application.

In my experience even when you pay for parking car park operators consider
that you buy a license to park.

If the car is taken from you for paid parking then the car parking company
is probably a baillee for reward and would have to justify why they should
not be liable for any damage.

I repeat IANAL and I could be out of date.

Nthkentman

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 11:15:02 AM3/6/12
to

"Bob" <b...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jj5bqp$ec3$1...@dont-email.me...
Depends on a few factors.
Was the car parked legally on business, a resident, or visiting one?
Are the apartments privately owned and managed by their own co-operative?
Is there a land agent for the owner of the land available. Query the
occupiers first.

Mind you... any insurance adjuster worth their salt will scream "Force
majeur" or the like or "Act of God" etc.

Lordgnome

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 11:40:09 AM3/6/12
to

"Bob" <b...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jj5bqp$ec3$1...@dont-email.me...
Hopefully not. Rather typical I would say, of the "someone must be liable"
culture which now pervades this country.
Did the owner of the car enter into any form of contract with the park owner
to indemnify him against acts of God or plain bad luck?

Les.


Bob

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 12:50:02 PM3/6/12
to
Thanks to all for their responses. it seems that there's a fairly broad
agreement that the owners of the car park are probably not liable.

Cheers

Frederick Williams

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 2:30:02 PM3/6/12
to
Bob wrote:
>
> Thanks to all for their responses. it seems that there's a fairly broad
> agreement that the owners of the car park are probably not liable.

I was wondering: does the owner of the car live in the flats, and if so,
does he pay a service charge? Would answers "yes" lead to a different
conclusion from that if the answers were "no" and "not applicable"?

Whenever I see a note saying "the management does not accept liability
for any damage caused...", I always think: do they really believe that
putting up a notice cloaks them from the effects of the law? Presumably
it's bluster like the "trespassers will be prosecuted" notices that one
used to see more often than one does now.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

The Todal

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 3:55:02 PM3/6/12
to
On 06/03/2012 17:50, Bob wrote:
> Thanks to all for their responses. it seems that there's a fairly broad
> agreement that the owners of the car park are probably not liable.
>

Strictly speaking, it's impossible to tell from those facts whether the
owners are liable because we don't know whether the tree was in a
dangerous condition.

If I was the car owner I'd write to the owners of the car park making a
claim and demanding disclosure of all documents relating to the
inspection of the tree and any work carried out to the tree. You never
know, they might have a report from an employee saying that the branch
looked rotten and the tree hasn't been looked at in years, and rather
than fight over a few hundred quid the insurers (such claims are always
handled by public liability insurers) might make an offer.

The Todal

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 4:00:05 PM3/6/12
to
I don't think that would be correct.

As a matter of law, the owner of a tree which has a TPO can fell it or
reduce it if it is causing danger to people or to property. However, the
fact that it merely causes litter or facilitates bird excrement wouldn't
be a good reason to fell it.

I don't think there is any decided case where a council has been held
liable for an accident on the basis of a decision to refuse permission
to reduce or fell a TPO tree.

>
> In my experience even when you pay for parking car park operators
> consider that you buy a license to park.
>
> If the car is taken from you for paid parking then the car parking
> company is probably a baillee for reward and would have to justify why
> they should not be liable for any damage.
>
> I repeat IANAL and I could be out of date.

My other post to this thread suggests that a claim could be made.

Hugh - Was Invisible

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 6:15:02 PM3/6/12
to

>
> I don't think that would be correct.
>
> As a matter of law, the owner of a tree which has a TPO can fell it or
> reduce it if it is causing danger to people or to property. However, the
> fact that it merely causes litter or facilitates bird excrement wouldn't
> be a good reason to fell it.
>
> I don't think there is any decided case where a council has been held
> liable for an accident on the basis of a decision to refuse permission
> to reduce or fell a TPO tree.
>
>>
>> In my experience even when you pay for parking car park operators
>> consider that you buy a license to park.
>>
>> If the car is taken from you for paid parking then the car parking
>> company is probably a baillee for reward and would have to justify why
>> they should not be liable for any damage.
>>
>> I repeat IANAL and I could be out of date.
>
> My other post to this thread suggests that a claim could be made.
>
I concur that there would be no harm in the OP putting in a claim and
seeing whether the defendant has an adequate system of check.

Was a matter of interest we have an old ash tree about 60 feet high in
poorish condition in our garden. It is the subject of a TPO. We became
worried when a branch about 12 feet long in full leaf dropped on to and
substantially damaged our sun lounger. This was within a few days of the
incident in Norfolk involving school students.

We invited the council tree officer round and she said the tree was not in
good condition and she would be happy to accept an application to fell and
replace. A well connected neighbour got about 50 people to object and the
application was refused. We got an experts report giving the opinion that
the tree had a life expectancy of less than 20 years and made another
application. This was refused by the council and the secretary of state on
appeal. We then made a third application, this time to crown reduce by 30
percent. There was some opposition but this was allowed. At least the most
apparently dangerous boughs across a busy bridleway behind our garden have
now been lightened.
I have a file about 6 inches thick and am hoping the tree expert I
employed was wrong although no expert evidence was obtained to give an
alternate opinion.

Jake

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 8:45:02 PM3/6/12
to

"Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4F566514...@btinternet.com...
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to all for their responses. it seems that there's a fairly broad
>> agreement that the owners of the car park are probably not liable.
>
> I was wondering: does the owner of the car live in the flats, and if so,
> does he pay a service charge? Would answers "yes" lead to a different
> conclusion from that if the answers were "no" and "not applicable"?
>
> Whenever I see a note saying "the management does not accept liability
> for any damage caused...", I always think: do they really believe that
> putting up a notice cloaks them from the effects of the law? Presumably
> it's bluster like the "trespassers will be prosecuted" notices that one
> used to see more often than one does now.

There was a case a while back - Photo Production vs Securicor, the result
being that a business can exclude liability from negligent acts of an
employee.


pete

unread,
Mar 6, 2012, 7:55:01 PM3/6/12
to
I helped a chap sue in a similar situation but he was seriously
injured. A tree surgeon established the tree had disease. The owners
records showed the tree had not been checked regularly by an expert
and the injured chap won £100K

pete

Peter Crosland

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 2:40:03 AM3/7/12
to
"Hugh - Was Invisible" <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.waruot0wgtk8fg@admin-pc...
According to my local authority if the tree is in a dangerous condition then
you don't even need to get permission to take urgent remedial action. You
are likely to have to justify it subsequently of course. There must be more
to the facts than you have stated. Planning inspectors are not known for
giving in to vociferous but ill judged opposition.

Regards from

Peter Crosland


Hugh - Was Invisible

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 3:30:03 AM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:40:03 -0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
I did not say the tree was dangerous. It is not in good condition but no
other largish branches have fallen since the one in question. It had been
pollarded at least twice in the past at different levels and then grown in
a non-specimen way for many years.
We were surprised that the tree officer changed her mind under pressure
from neighbours and a local and county councilor. She did tell us that on
one occasion she she had a neighbour and his wife shouting at her at the
same time
from separate telephone extensions.
It was interesting that the final application was approved at the earliest
possible moment after notice expired. I suspect she was not prepared to
risk another onslaught. I live in a village full of nimbys of whom very
few originate from this area. At least I was born in this county.

Ophelia

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 6:10:02 AM3/7/12
to

"Hugh - Was Invisible" <invi...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:op.waruot0wgtk8fg@admin-pc...
>
>>
What would happen to you if you went ahead and felled it?


--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Man at B&Q

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 6:15:03 AM3/7/12
to
On Mar 7, 8:30 am, "Hugh - Was Invisible" <invisi...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> I live in a village full of nimbys of whom very
> few originate from this area. At least I was born in this county.

We went to view a house on a large plot and were told that there were
23 TPOs covering it. All applied for by one neighbour to effectively
prevent a previous owner from redeveloping the plot.

MBQ

Peter Crosland

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 7:20:03 AM3/7/12
to
"Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message
news:9rotmv...@mid.individual.net...
You risk being prosecuted.

Regards from

Peter Crosland


Peter Crosland

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 7:25:02 AM3/7/12
to
"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7843464-0ef0-47d2...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sounds like sour grapes to me. There is no power for a private individual to
impose a TPO. Anyone may ask the local planning authority to consider a TPO
but it is subject to a set of rules and is not done without good reason. The
landowner has the right to make representations about it and has the right
to appeal. Furthermore TPOs are not cast in stone and it is always open to
the landowner to make an application to do work or to fell a tree if
circumstances change.

Regards from

Peter Crosland


steve robinson

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 8:00:04 AM3/7/12
to
We had a similar issue in wales, its taken years to resolve , slowly
but surely those trees have been felled, several because they posed
an immediate and imminent danger to staff and visitors after one very
windy night. :)

Ophelia

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 8:50:02 AM3/7/12
to

"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bJ6dnR5ak7w1zMrS...@brightview.co.uk...
I realise that, but what would the likely penalty?

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Hugh - Was Invisible

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 8:55:02 AM3/7/12
to
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 12:25:02 -0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
According to others in the area our neighbour asked for TPOs to be put on
every tree of any size in the area.
He is still bitter about a pair of Scots pines felled by an old and frail
previous owner of our property allegedly by mistake.

Despite coming from several counties away he seems to think he is lord of
the manor. He has bought a bridleway to the rear of the properties which
has rights of way to others garages. He has put up posts to prevent
anything larger than a car being able to gain access amongst other things.

Hugh - Was Invisible

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:05:02 AM3/7/12
to
A fine of up to £20,000 per tree in a magistrates court or unlimited at
crown court. Not a risk to take lightly.

Peter Crosland

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:10:02 AM3/7/12
to
"Ophelia" <Oph...@Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message
news:9rp7b4...@mid.individual.net...
A fine plus you could be forced to plant a replacement at your expense.


Regards from

Peter Crosland


Ophelia

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:25:03 AM3/7/12
to

"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:va6dnXFY_vZ09srS...@brightview.co.uk...
Thanks. What an awful state of affairs that the owner of trees on their
own property cannot fell them if they so wish. Perhaps a warning to anyone
who even thinks about planting a tree!!!

--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

steve robinson

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:25:11 AM3/7/12
to
£10k a tree i believe

steve robinson

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:35:02 AM3/7/12
to
There are ways and means, if the tree is causing an immediate and
imminent danger you can lop it down, same if its diseased or the
roots are causing damage.

Some developers will just lop it anyway and pay the fine.

We had nightmares in wales with tpos on one of the projects i was
involved with it took years to sought out




Ophelia

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:45:03 AM3/7/12
to

"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0hvbby...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
> There are ways and means, if the tree is causing an immediate and
> imminent danger you can lop it down, same if its diseased or the
> roots are causing damage.
>
> Some developers will just lop it anyway and pay the fine.
>
> We had nightmares in wales with tpos on one of the projects i was
> involved with it took years to sought out

It beggars belief!



--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Martin Bonner

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:50:10 AM3/7/12
to
On Wednesday, 7 March 2012 11:15:03 UTC, Man at B&amp;Q wrote:
> We went to view a house on a large plot and were told that there were
> 23 TPOs covering it. All applied for by one neighbour to effectively
> prevent a previous owner from redeveloping the plot.

Individuals can't apply for a TPO. All they can do is suggest to the council that one would be appropriate. (The initial TPO is usually made by an officer, and then approved by the council.)

Lordgnome

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 7:25:09 AM3/7/12
to

"Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7843464-0ef0-47d2...@gr6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Another method of effectively restricting development is to erect a large
wind turbine. They don't like it up 'em, as Mr. Mannering would say!

Les.


Bob

unread,
Mar 7, 2012, 9:40:02 PM3/7/12
to
> Thanks to all for their responses. it seems that there's a fairly broad
> agreement that the owners of the car park are probably not liable.

I was wondering: does the owner of the car live in the flats, and if so,
does he pay a service charge? Would answers "yes" lead to a different
conclusion from that if the answers were "no" and "not applicable"?

----------------------------------------

To answer your questions, the car belongs to one of the flat occupiers who
does indeed pay a service charge.

tim....

unread,
Mar 9, 2012, 2:05:02 PM3/9/12
to

"Frederick Williams" <freddyw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4F566514...@btinternet.com...
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to all for their responses. it seems that there's a fairly broad
>> agreement that the owners of the car park are probably not liable.
>
> I was wondering: does the owner of the car live in the flats, and if so,
> does he pay a service charge? Would answers "yes" lead to a different
> conclusion from that if the answers were "no" and "not applicable"?

I feel sure that the answer to your question is "No it wouldn't make any
difference" (in this case)

tim


0 new messages