Damage From Building Work

This could get very long winded so I'll cut to the abridged version. Basically this is the situation between two of the neighbours on the street where I live. Anyone have any suggestions?

I'll just call them Mike and Mary, made up names of course. Mike gets his loft converted and hires a builder. The builder in turn hires a scaffolder which Mike has no dealings with. During a really bad storm some debris falls off the scaffold and breaks Mary's conservatory roof window. Nobody is present at the time and there are no witnesses (this is important).

The builder offers to repair everything himself on the spot. Replace the window and he has his own crew of joiners that will sand and varnish any furniture to make it good as new. Just in case there was any scratches from the glass or rainwater.

Mary refuses. She says she was going to renovate anyway and wanted to change things around. They agree that a financial contribution be made towards her own work equal to the value of the damage, and forget about it. €200 or so for the window.

So far so good.

Another week and another storm hits. Another of Mary's windows gets broken, again overnight and with no witnesses. She then rejects the earlier offer that was accepted but not paid, and presents the builder with a claim for a complete re-fit of the conservatory - including a brand new Regency dining table with six chairs costing 2 grand and 12 square meters of flooring at well over €100 per sq. meter.

I remind you this was a broken window, not a tornado.

I suspect she took some bad advice and spent money she can't afford, thinking someone else will pick up the bill no questions asked. Except now the builder says the second accident was the fault of the scaffolding company, not him. Seems the scaffold shifted in the storm and clipped the chimney pot enough for a piece to fall through the window.

So as there was no witnesses you now have two companies (builders and scaffolders) each saying the other one is responsible. Neither are prepared to get their insurance companies involved as it would cripple their premiums, and neither will even divulge who their insurance providers are.

So where does Mary go from here? Obviously she's entitled to something, but everyone else thinks she took the p!ss a bit with the expenses so don't want to cooperate with her.

Also what, if anything, do you think Mike has to do about this? As the owner of the house next door where the work that led to the accident was carried out, does he have any liability in any of this?

TL:DR - Woman's window is broke. Builders and scaffolders each say it's the other's responsibility. Does the homeowner have any obligations to his neighbour?

Ger Byrne 1

the home owner set out the job
so no

Paulw

Was the scaffolder certified? Did he secure the scaffolding? Was it inspected and signed off?

If not then he is totally liable. But, the homeowner should make sure that all those employed hold the correct qualifications and have their Safepass, and do their work properly, including inspections.

Ger Byrne 1

or was somebody moving stuff after it was put up

Pat Mustard

Mary needs to get a solicitor to write letters the responsible parties here, and take it from there.

If the responsible parties don't cop on, it could turn into one of those horrible, scrappy District Court cases with engineers and expert witnesses and legal costs for several parties, which will be a multiple of the cost of repairing the damage.

I am unsure if a complaint to the Health & Safety Authority would lead to the relevant insurance details coming to light.

Victor

Mary goes to solicitor.

Stupid solicitor says:
* Mary sues neighbour, builder and scaffolder.
* Neighbour and builder put the burden on the scaffolder to defend the case.
* The scaffolders insurance pays out before it gets to court.

Smart solicitor tells neighbour, builder and scaffolder to agree something amongst themselves and their insurers and sort out Mary with new glass and some contribution for the disruption.

Importantly, how much damage was there the second time?

hullaballoo

Victor wrote: »

Mary goes to solicitor.

Stupid solicitor says:
* Mary sues neighbour, builder and scaffolder.
* Neighbour and builder put the burden on the scaffolder to defend the case.
* The scaffolders insurance pays out before it gets to court.

Smart solicitor tells neighbour, builder and scaffolder to agree something amongst themselves and their insurers and sort out Mary with new glass and some contribution for the disruption.

Importantly, how much damage was there the second time?

This is not how the law works.

The party against whom a wrong has been committed sends a letter to the parties he or she suspects are liable. In some cases, those parties are easily identified, in others a wider net has to be cast. The letter requests that all/some/one of the recipients admit liability or alternatively, point the finger at the liable party.

The parties to whom the letter is sent either admit or deny liability (usually deny) and try and blame another of the parties to whom the letter is sent.

In your example, Mary would sue all three. Sometimes, some of the defendants might agree that one of their number has no liability and "let's them out" of the case: this can take numerous forms but the important thing for the party who has been let out is that they are indemnified against costs and any order. Let's say the Builder and scaffolder let the neighbour out.

The case runs and Mary wins.

Two outcomes that could happen here are (a) that Mary wins and the Builder and scaffolder are found each to be 50% at fault (or 99% and 1% or any other apportionment). Mary is happy to have won and buys her lawyers a cup of tea and a scone. Both the builder and the scaffolder are now liable to pay the whole amount of the judgment (joint and several liability). Even if the scaffolder is only 1% liable, if the scaffolder is cash rich, the likelihood is that Mary's lawyers will look to them for payment first.

Let's say the scaffolder pays Mary the full amount (not that this is the norm, but it does happen.) There is now a third party issue between defendants whereby the scaffolder seeks to recover the 99% of the award sum that he was found to be not liable for from the builder. Mary doesn't care about this. In fact, she probably doesn't even know.

The other outcome is (b) that Mary wins but only against the Builder. The scaffolder is found to be 0% liable. The result is that Mary and the builder may have to fight about who pays the scaffolder's costs because the scaffolder should never have been sued. Mary will argue that she had no means of knowing which of the two was liable and had sought, to no avail, that information from the other defendants. The builder won't really have a whole lot to counter-argue but will try anyway. Depending on the facts, the judge will decide which of Mary and the builder must pay the scaffolder's legal costs.

The likelihood is that Mary gets out without an order for costs against her unless the builder is able to show she knew she shouldn't have sued the scaffolder.

Ger Byrne 1

forget the solicitor
sort it out between yourselves

JimsAlterEgo

should Mary not go thru her insurance ask ask Builder for his insurance details?

notharrypotter

During a really bad storm some debris falls off the scaffold and breaks Mary's conservatory roof window.

The builder offers to repair everything himself on the spot. Replace the window and he has his own crew of joiners that will sand and varnish any furniture to make it good as new. Just in case there was any scratches from the glass or rainwater.

Another week and another storm hits. Another of Mary's windows gets broken,

Curious.

2 windows are broken over a period of 2 weeks.

Is there an obligation on Mary to mitigate her losses.
Because of her not accepting the offer of a repair for the first window she is actually liable for 50% of the loss?

Pat Mustard

No mitigation issue arises out of the facts here.