Builder damaged neighbouring property, who pays?

runswithascript

So as a small part of a long running job work was being done on a wall we share with our neighbor and their side was damaged. We were under the impression the head builder was going to pay for the labour and materials to repair but we are starting to get a feeling he does not see it this way.

To make things more complicated, a family member who was overseeing the head builder's work brought the actual labourer in that did the damage separately to speed things up, the labourer normally does not work for the head builder.

If our family member was standing there supervising at the time it might make sense we cover costs, but it may turn out they were not (long story), in which case is the head builder liable?

FTR we are not going to leave our neighbour with the damage no matter what, even if that means we pay, which may be perfectly normal?

Pay for the whole job to all on site was per day.

Please advise who should pay for the damage.

audi12

Tell the builder to pay greedy scumbags builders they have loads of cash

NinjaTruncs

It sounds like your family member is liable as they employed the person who did the damage?

runswithascript

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

It sounds like your family member is liable as they employed the person who did the damage?

I cannot really argue with that, even though that means our paying. Though if he was told by head builder to keep going into the wall further etc it muddies the waters, no?

It may also emerge (long story) it was one of the head builder's regular lads, what then?

Calahonda52

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0027/sec0043.html#sec43
They are the
“adjoining owner” means the owner of any estate or interest in a building or unbuilt-on land adjoining that of the building owner;


You are the
“building owner” means the owner for the time being of any estate or interest in a building or unbuilt-on land who wishes to carry out works to a party structure;

HTH

Raymond Darcy

Family member, unfortunately

_Brian

Who was this lad working for ??

If he was being paid for by the "family" then I'd be happy to say you are liable..
TBH, even if he was being paid for by the builder, he could argue this guy wasn't his choice of workman and his failings and the cost of same would still rest with the family..

I can't see how your not paying for this.

runswithascript

We are not saying we are not paying, we just want to know what the norm is, and I have already said we are not going to leave neighbour's wall in disrepair no matter what.

What if it turns out to have been one of the head builders regular lads that did it?

Calahonda52

dusf wrote: »

We are not saying we are not paying, we just want to know what the norm is, and I have already said we are not going to leave neighbour's wall in disrepair no matter what.

What if it turns out to have been one of the head builders regular lads that did it?

As you are the building owner as per the law as outlined above, who did what is not a concern of your neighbour.
U are on the line for 4 items
repairs to damaged wall
"compo" for any inconvenience/disturbance/
reasonable contribution for professional advice: think maybe 2,000 plus vat if he gets annoyed.

(a) make good all damage caused to the adjoining owner as a consequence of the works, or reimburse the adjoining owner the reasonable costs and expenses of such making good, and

(b) pay to the adjoining owner—

(i) the reasonable costs of obtaining professional advice with regard to the likely consequences of the works, and

(ii) reasonable compensation for any inconvenience caused by the works.

legal fees if he goes to district court.

So I would keep him sweet and get it sorted and you worry about who did what.

Kristopherus

Calahonda52 wrote: »

As you are the building owner as per the law as outlined above, who did what is not a concern of your neighbour.
U are on the line for 4 items
repairs to damaged wall
"compo" for any inconvenience/disturbance/
reasonable contribution for professional advice: think maybe 2,000 plus vat if he gets annoyed.

(a) make good all damage caused to the adjoining owner as a consequence of the works, or reimburse the adjoining owner the reasonable costs and expenses of such making good, and

(b) pay to the adjoining owner—

(i) the reasonable costs of obtaining professional advice with regard to the likely consequences of the works, and

(ii) reasonable compensation for any inconvenience caused by the works.

legal fees if he goes to district court.

So I would keep him sweet and get it sorted and you worry about who did what.

I think you have misread what the OP is saying. He has already stated that he will not see the neighbour short. He's already on very good terms with the neighbour, so bringing legalities into the scene is a no no imo.

runswithascript

Calahonda52, I read the first link you posted when you did so but could not work out why you linked it, and why you are quoting the law now, there is no question that we are responsible to our neighbour for the damage, as we commissioned the work. How many times do I have to say that we will pay if we have to so our neighbour is not left with their property in disrepair? This will be sorted in the next few days, it's not something that is going to run on.

Please stick to the topic, where we stand in relation to costs with the builder.

runswithascript

So say it was the builder's man that did the damage, normally would they cover the costs of repair?

Strolling Bones

dusf wrote: »

So say it was the builder's man that did the damage, normally would they cover the costs of repair?

Not if he was was brought to site by you. Which from the stance of the builder he was.

runswithascript

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Not if he was was brought to site by you. Which from the stance of the builder he was.

I am asking what if turns out to have been one of his own men that did the damage? We do not yet know for certain who it was, though we think it was the labourer brought to the job by our family member, it may turn out not to have been. There is a long story to why we are unclear on this right now which I will not get into here.

What if it was the builder's own man, normally would the builder cover costs for repair or would the home owners, as after all the builder was working for them?

Strolling Bones

dusf wrote: »

I am asking what if turns out to have been one of his own men that did the damage? We do not yet know for certain who it was, though we think it was the labourer brought to the job by our family member, it may turn out not to have been. There is a long story to why we are unclear on this right now which I will not get into here.

What if it was the builder's own man, normally would the builder cover costs for repair or would the home owners, as after all the builder was working for them?

If the builder or his workforce caused the damages I doubt you would be asking the question.

You really need to respect others here with a straight story.

Strolling Bones

dusf wrote: »

I am asking what if turns out to have been one of his own men that did the damage? We do not yet know for certain who it was, though we think it was the labourer brought to the job by our family member, it may turn out not to have been. There is a long story to why we are unclear on this right now which I will not get into here.

What if it was the builder's own man, normally would the builder cover costs for repair or would the home owners, as after all the builder was working for them?

If the builder or his workforce caused the damages I doubt you would be asking the question.

You really need to respect others here with a straight story.

Bonzo Delaney

First determine who done the damage
With a straight and true account of events you'll get good advice here
If it was the main builders employee that did the damage he would obviously cover it as his insurance would cover his employee
If you brought in another contractor the other contractor covers it under his insurance. The other guy was insured and covered to be working on site at the time wasn't he?

AngryHippie

I feel like information is being requested to help reverse-engineer a sequence of events to ensure that whoever ends up admitting liability is covered by a third party....
If the work was under supervision of a non-company employee at the time of the damage, I would not be one bit surprised if the builder told you to jam it. whether it was by his employee or some free agent you shoe-horned in for additional labor will become a bit irrelevant in that instance as the damage would not have occurred under competent supervision, or would be covered by PI, PL or CL insurance held by the company and nominated supervisor.

I don't mean to sound defensive, but the way the information is being drip fed, and dubious scenarios being depicted, has aroused my suspicionses...;)

runswithascript

Strolling Bones wrote: »

If the builder or his workforce caused the damages I doubt you would be asking the question.

As I have said, several times now, we believe it was the extra worker that was brought in that did the damage, although that was unclear.

Strolling Bones wrote: »

You really need to respect others here with a straight story.

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

First determine who done the damage
With a straight and true account of events you'll get good advice here

Also, as I have already posted, we wanted to know what the norm was for both eventualities before discussing it with the builder - I do not understand why you would think that unreasonable.

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

If it was the main builders employee that did the damage he would obviously cover it as his insurance would cover his employee

Thank you, that is the simple answer I was looking for.

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

If you brought in another contractor the other contractor covers it under his insurance. The other guy was insured and covered to be working on site at the time wasn't he?

That makes sense.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I feel like information is being requested to help reverse-engineer a sequence of events to ensure that whoever ends up admitting liability is covered by a third party....

Your feeling is wrong. Whoever did the damage did the damage, we have no inclination to persuade anyone else to the contrary, something which would not be possible anyway so I do not know why you are even suggesting that! I do not know where you are getting any of this from.

We wanted to know who is liable for each scenario so we could be as prepared as possible before discussing it with the builder, there is nothing complicated or underhanded about this, it is as simple as that.

AngryHippie wrote: »

If the work was under supervision of a non-company employee at the time of the damage, I would not be one bit surprised if the builder told you to jam it. whether it was by his employee or some free agent you shoe-horned in for additional labor will become a bit irrelevant in that instance as the damage would not have occurred under competent supervision, or would be covered by PI, PL or CL insurance held by the company and nominated supervisor.

Nobody was 'shoe-horned' in, you are not familiar with the build here so you are in no position to comment on whether additional labour was required or not, and as the homeowners we can employ whoever we want to work on our property.

AngryHippie wrote: »

I don't mean to sound defensive, but the way the information is being drip fed, and dubious scenarios being depicted, has aroused my suspicionses...;)

Well you do sound defensive, overly defensive, and like you have a chip on your shoulder. There is nothing sinister or dubious in the query I had, anyone with any sense should be able to see we just wanted to be as prepared as possible before discussing it with the builder.

I expected a lot of builders to read the construction & planning forum, but I did not expect those replying to the thread to be so defensive and jump to the assumption that we were trying to shirk any costs onto the builder or to our neighbours etc. All we wanted to know was who normally pays for damage to adjoining property, whether the damaged was caused by a worker directly employed by the builder or someone else we brought in but working under his supervision. Jesus.

Strolling Bones

dusf wrote: »

All we wanted to know was who normally pays for damage to adjoining property,

He who caused the sequence of events to unfold on the adjoining property - in this case you.

To what extent you can then recover costs is depending on

dusf wrote: »

whether the damaged was caused by a worker directly employed by the builder

then your builder is repsonsible to you

dusf wrote: »

someone else we brought in but working under his supervision

The agreement to supervise works by others not directly under his employment needs to be expressly agreed to in writing for the builder to be accountable. There can be no verbal , tacit or implied "understanding" of this.

dusf wrote: »

Jesus

wept.

cork2

audi12 wrote: »

Tell the builder to pay greedy scumbags builders they have loads of cash

Oh how I love a good joke!!

cork2

dusf wrote: »

So as a small part of a long running job work was being done on a wall we share with our neighbor and their side was damaged. We were under the impression the head builder was going to pay for the labour and materials to repair but we are starting to get a feeling he does not see it this way.

To make things more complicated, a family member who was overseeing the head builder's work brought the actual labourer in that did the damage separately to speed things up, the labourer normally does not work for the head builder.

If our family member was standing there supervising at the time it might make sense we cover costs, but it may turn out they were not (long story), in which case is the head builder liable?

FTR we are not going to leave our neighbour with the damage no matter what, even if that means we pay, which may be perfectly normal?

Pay for the whole job to all on site was per day.

Please advise who should pay for the damage.

A labourer did the damage whilst working for the builder. The builder took on the project and in doing so commits to leaving the property in the manner he found it. If an individual working for him did the damage than the builder pays.

jungleman

OP you might be better off posting this in the legal discussion forum. You might find the answers there to be a bit more informed and a bit less judgmental!

Strolling Bones

jungleman wrote: »

OP you might be better off posting this in the legal discussion forum. You might find the answers there to be a bit more informed and a bit less judgmental!

Yes that's how the internet works.

persistence yeilds succour.

rampantbunny

OP...sometimes the hardest part of submitting a post on boards (in some forums) is phrasing it so that you only get back the information you want.
If you leave the door ajar i.e. open to interpretation/misinterpretation, then it can be open season on you.

You're better off gathering all your facts first. Your initial conversations with the builder and others to establish these facts i.e. who is at fault, doesn't have to result in a there-and-then decision as to who is liable for damages. In this situation I think facts first, advice second would be my preferred approach.

runswithascript

rampantbunny wrote: »

OP...sometimes the hardest part of submitting a post on boards (in some forums) is phrasing it so that you only get back the information you want.
If you leave the door ajar i.e. open to interpretation/misinterpretation, then it can be open season on you.

You're better off gathering all your facts first. Your initial conversations with the builder and others to establish these facts i.e. who is at fault, doesn't have to result in a there-and-then decision as to who is liable for damages. In this situation I think facts first, advice second would be my preferred approach.

I understand your point but the reason we sought advice here first is so when we sat down with the builder we would know what the norm would be, whether it was one of his own men or the extra worker we brought in. Do you understand my reasoning?

rampantbunny

dusf wrote: »

I understand your point but the reason we sought advice here first is so when we sat down with the builder we would know what the norm would be, whether it was one of his own men or the extra worker we brought in. Do you understand my reasoning?

Of course (understand that is). But experience on the 'construction' forum means I understand also that there will be so many opinions I won't necessarily leave more informed.

I quoted 'construction' because there are builders, self builders, architects, engineers etc. here. We'll all have different view points so the norm can differ depending on the people answering the question.