Fire shield removed

[DiyNutJob]

Yeah, liability is a sod. Here's how it works;
That collar was hidden in some boxing as part of the original build. There's a fire in your place, it spreads upstairs cos collar failed. Investigation proves the structure is original

Obviously.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Obviously.

Sorry, cat pressed Submit. Have a read now

 

[DiyNutJob]

If you rectify the fault and evidence it with detailed pics that'll be better than nothing but not as good as having approval from the body responsible for controlling these things.

How much for approval?

 

[DiyNutJob]

Sorry, cat pressed Submit. Have a read now

Obviously. I suspect your cat is pretty clued up on building regs too.

 

[^woody^]

If it did, I would be at fault, or the builders?

It can be complex, but generally there is a hierarchy in terms of who may be responsible and give the best chance of a successful prospection (statute claims) and who may give the best chance of a successful claim (civil claims)

Liability depends on either who the law states is liable - in the case of statute law, or who a court deems owes a duty to others in the case of common law (ie civil claims). Also in the case of contracts, duty to others (and lability) can end after certain time periods.

So, whilst a builder can be liable for this work, that can end after a limitation period for civil claims, but that won't be the case for statute claims. Then property owner could be deemed liable for his property regardless, and its down to what would be reasonably expected of a property owner. Owners in communal blocks have more onerous responsibility.

In practical terms, statute claims are absolute so it's down to who the laws say is liable, and it may well be that liability can't be proven over time. With civil claims the threshold is lower, so claims are made against the property owner (who may hold a duty to other residents) and the property owner makes claims against builders or others (who may hold a duty to the property owner but not to other residents), and the builders claim against sub-contractors, suppliers and designers etc (who owe a duty to the builder but not the client).

Grenfel is a good example of trying to prove liability.

 

[DiyNutJob]

In practical terms, statute claims are absolute so it's down to who the laws say is liable, and it may well be that liability can't be proven over time. With civil claims the threshold is lower, so claims are made against the property owner (who may hold a duty to other residents) and the property owner makes claims against builders or others (who may hold a duty to the property owner but not to other residents), and the builders claim against sub-contractors, suppliers and designers etc (who owe a duty to the builder but not the client).

So everyone sues everyone else. The first to run out of money for solicitors is the guilty party.

 

[DiyNutJob]

The contractor agreed to get a new unit. I suppose I will be going in the taking photos route.

 

[Nakajo]

That seems to suggest the builders needn't do a good job, or even do a job at all since they can't be faulted.

Who says they can't be faulted? They can be faulted, but they first have to be caught.

 

[^woody^]

So everyone sues everyone else. The first to run out of money for solicitors is the guilty party.

That's it. The ones most likely to be able to pay are in the firing line.

That's why all those no-win/no-fee adverts with people wanting "justice" and Solicitors touting to help those get "justice", really just mean want "money", and claims are merely commercial decisions based on who can pay.

 

[mrrusty]

It would certainly be best to replace or install a new fire collar, however, unless you are under some sort of contractual obligation, I expect it is the building owner's responsibility to ensure the fire safety and certification is maintained. Even if you did get a third party to certify, who would they be certifying for - you? the building owner? unless you already carry liability for the fire safety of the building your certification in isolation would carry no value. If you do replace, I would however inform your freeholder - they may insist on you paying for their re-certification if you have altered the fire integrity.

FWIW, my company routinely install intumescent collars on installation work in hospitals, and only very, very rarely are contracted to also supply the final fire certification - this is usually done by others directly on behalf of the Hospital, mainly because work requiring a warranty by a 3rd party (e.g. the hospital) who is neither the supplier (certifying company) or their customer (us, as hospitals' contractor or sub-contractor) would require the complexities of collateral warranties to have any value.