Is this wall a risk?
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
Sponsored Links
It's a general legal principle. If you're aware that something you're responsible for has the potential to harm others then you're negligent if you don't do anything about it.
If the owner doesn't visit then he may get away with it if his tenants or others don't tell him. You could wait until the wall falls onto a pushchair and let the lawyers argue about it, but if someone somewhere tells him and records this then he knows he's on the hook if the worst ever happens so should get his arse into gear.
Hopefully the council will send an official letter telling him of his responsibility.
It doesn't answer my question though.
Who determines the structural integrity of the wall and the subsequent 'informing the owner' thing?
Either highways or BC, depending on who investigates, assuming it's deemed unsafe.
Sponsored Links
And then enforcement - if the owner does not give a hoot? The same people?
Ultimately if all else fails the council will be able to rebuild it then bill the owner. If he doesn't pay they can take him to court, then seize his property if he doesn't pay.
That's not the principle of negligence/ law of tort.
Being aware of potential to cause harm is not sufficient, the threshold is whether a duty is owed to the injured person and if that duty was breached.
No, "the council" does not have automatic right (or obligation) to enter or touch any private property.
Dangerous structures | LABC
Buildings and structures such as boundary walls, fences and hoardings can become dangerous when they are unable to carry imposed loads and are at risk of collapse.
Report a dangerous building or structure
You can report a dangerous building to the local council
Erm... whatever. You win if that makes you happy!
Not really, but I'd be ecstatic if you could confine your assertions to things you actually know about.
You googled and pasted some legalese that's of no value to anyone, and doesn't prove anything.
You carry on with your keyboard wars if you like, but nobody else cares.
You carry on with your keyboard wars if you like, but nobody else cares.
In general, if a bit of your property falls and causes damage or injury to someone or their property - then you are liable.
How liable then comes down to specifics - and what could be proved.
At one extreme, you have an obviously dangerous wall and you've been told about it but done nothing. Not got a leg to stand on and as well as civil damages (which could be increased on account of your negligence) risk prosecution.
At the other extreme, you've employed a professional to periodically inspect things, and they've told you there are no significant defects - but then something unexpected happens. You are still liable for damage to other parties, but a prosecution wouldn't happen (there'd be no chance of success).
Of course, that's the theory ...
A friend of a friend had a problem with a path running down the side of their garden. They'd long had problems with vandalism and anti-social louts. It came to a head when said louts pulled the fence down and then claimed for injury from it. Of course, without any evidence you can't prove they pulled the fence down - so the insurance paid out on the basis that it was cheaper than fighting it, even though it was pretty obvious and the louts had form for that sort of thing.
I've other examples of that sort of thing.
How liable then comes down to specifics - and what could be proved.
At one extreme, you have an obviously dangerous wall and you've been told about it but done nothing. Not got a leg to stand on and as well as civil damages (which could be increased on account of your negligence) risk prosecution.
At the other extreme, you've employed a professional to periodically inspect things, and they've told you there are no significant defects - but then something unexpected happens. You are still liable for damage to other parties, but a prosecution wouldn't happen (there'd be no chance of success).
Of course, that's the theory ...
A friend of a friend had a problem with a path running down the side of their garden. They'd long had problems with vandalism and anti-social louts. It came to a head when said louts pulled the fence down and then claimed for injury from it. Of course, without any evidence you can't prove they pulled the fence down - so the insurance paid out on the basis that it was cheaper than fighting it, even though it was pretty obvious and the louts had form for that sort of thing.
I've other examples of that sort of thing.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
