Damage to car in apartment complex.

[iano086]

Tenants car is parked in designated space associated with apartment he rents.

Tree reported as needing attention in planning permission docs ( but which doesnt get that attention) loses a bough in a storm years later. Bough flattens car during the night.

Owner of car sues 2 management agencies and owner of apartment (landlord/owner has a connection with the owners management company by virture of membership)

What basis for suing landlord? Would have thought man. co's the 'offender' and landlord (and anyone he legally assigned his interest in his car park space to) the offendee.

Thanks for any insight.

Edit to correct: landlord owner of apartment has connection to the owners management company. Presumably a portion of the responsibility.

 

[jdwex]

Owner is member of Owner's Management Company. Management Agency is contracted by Management Company.
Are these the two Management Companies that are being sued?

 

[mathepac]

The landlord only thinks he has no connection with the OMC and their managing agent and the tenant only thinks he has contract(s) with some body other than his landlord and motor insurer.

 

[Leo]

The owner of the tree has a liability regardless of any contract between them, or any other connected party, and the car owner. Trees or branches falling during a storm are usually considered natural events where the owner can escape liability, but this does not apply where they have been made aware the tree may be dangerous or need attention. There were warnings in the media about this to land owners after the last few big storms.

 

[iano086]

@jdwex.

It would appear that yes, the owner management co (omc) and the property maintenance company (pmc) contracted by them are being sued, along with the landlord.

I'm not clear why the landlord is being sued directly. If being sued in connection with his membership of the omc (a body which can logically be seen as "the offender"), then why not all members of the omc? Would he not be liable for 1/20th of the portion of the damages - in the event there were 19 other members of the omc?

 

[iano086]

@mathepac

The owner understands his connection via the omc - hence the above question about being liable for a portion of costs.

 

[iano086]

@Leo

It makes sense that the owner of the tree (the omc) is liable (and thus, this particular landlord is liable, by virtue of his portion of membership of the omc, for a portion of the damages).

Whether the pmc is liable probably depends on the nature of the contract between the omc and the pmc - whether tree inspection and maintenance was part of that contract.

I would have thought the tenants tenancy contract with the landlord is irrelevant, other than perhaps justify his being there in the first place.

 

[Leo]

I wonder if the the landlord is attached due to any duty of care they owe to the renter of their property, and a possibility they were (or should have been) aware of the risk imposed by this tree?

 

[iano086]

I wonder if the the landlord is attached due to any duty of care they owe to the renter of their property, and a possibility they were (or should have been) aware of the risk imposed by this tree?

Strikes me as a bit tenuous. Conveyancing wouldn't bring that kind of thing to light for a typical apartment purchase - you've certs of completion, folio, survey's and the like. As a member of the omc he'd be on the hook - along with every other member.

But each individual apartment owner (in the sense of having landlord duties) trawling through the planning process, arborists reports, maintenance logs ... in order to find out whether there is anything for which they could be held liable?

 

[Leo]

Conveyancing wouldn't bring that kind of thing to light for a typical apartment purchase

It really should. Planning information is public, free for all to view online or in the planning office. No one should be parting with significant sums without reviewing all is in order with the property they are buying and confirming there are no proposed developments nearby that would adversely affect them.

 

[Seagull]

If the tree is referred to in the planning permission document, would the builder not have some degree of liability?

 

[llgon]

And at least one architect or engineer presumably signed off that planning had been complied with.

 

[iano086]

And at least one architect or engineer presumably signed off that planning had been complied with.

That would be my guess. A line in the sand at which the conveyancing process could be expected to stop. Whilst a planning search would be looking to protect the purchaser from potentially negative developments around the target property, the conveyancing solicitor would take professional sign off as sufficient protection for his client. That's the way it's been in properties I've bought and sold - certs on planning/building reg conformance issued to the buyers solicitor.

@Leo. Whilst a purchaser could indeed access information right back to the beginning of time, the question would, I imagine, what is reasonable for him to have done to ensure he was furnishing a safe n sound property.

 

[Leo]

Whilst a purchaser could indeed access information right back to the beginning of time, the question would, I imagine, what is reasonable for him to have done to ensure he was furnishing a safe n sound property.

Yep, they should, but let's face it, many don't do much in the way of research at all. The question of what is reasonable is often hard to predict. Does an engineer signing off on a development as compliant at that point in time completely exonerate the landlord from any and all liabilities that may arise years later when they lease their property to another party?

 

[llgon]

Does an engineer signing off on a development as compliant at that point in time completely exonerate the landlord from any and all liabilities that may arise years later when they lease their property to another party?

Obviously not, but irrelevant.

In this case I don't see how the landlord or the solicitor who handled the purchase of the apartment could be in any way responsible, except in regard to the landlord's membership of the omc.

 

[Leo]

The car owner's entitlement to park there is by way of their relationship / contract with the landlord who they rented the parking space from, that may necessitate their being joined in the action.

 

[iano086]

Yep, they should, but let's face it, many don't do much in the way of research at all. The question of what is reasonable is often hard to predict. Does an engineer signing off on a development as compliant at that point in time completely exonerate the landlord from any and all liabilities that may arise years later when they lease their property to another party?

I would have thought so. Compliant is compliant. I've seen the word "substantially" used in front of "compliant with building regs" by architects signing off on old, builder-built extensions. It means nothing but seems to satisfy buyer solicitors.

In a development like this, I'd have thunk the word substantially couldn't be used - it would have been monitored throughout by the architect in charge and that get out wouldn't fly.

It wouldn't exonerate a landlord in terms of subsequent issues (such as lack of maintenance or unregulated adaptations to electrical systems, for example). But as a line in the sand for stuff occurring before the point of sale, I'd have thought so.

 

[iano086]

The car owner's entitlement to park there is by way of their relationship / contract with the landlord who they rented the parking space from, that may necessitate their being joined in the action.

Joined in the action to sue the OMC, perhaps. The tenant, and by extension, the landlord are the offended parties. The OMC the offender. That's my thinking anyway.

 

[Leo]

Joined in the action to sue the OMC, perhaps. The tenant, and by extension, the landlord are the offended parties. The OMC the offender. That's my thinking anyway.

The landlord has suffered no loss unless there was some damage to the parking space or any other property they owned.

 

[Leo]

I would have thought so. Compliant is compliant. I've seen the word "substantially" used in front of "compliant with building regs" by architects signing off on old, builder-built extensions. It means nothing but seems to satisfy buyer solicitors.

In a development like this, I'd have thunk the word substantially couldn't be used - it would have been monitored throughout by the architect in charge and that get out wouldn't fly.

It wouldn't exonerate a landlord in terms of subsequent issues (such as lack of maintenance or unregulated adaptations to electrical systems, for example). But as a line in the sand for stuff occurring before the point of sale, I'd have thought so.

While the term 'substantial compliance' is more often used in Opinions on Compliance, it can be user for new builds, including apartment complexes. At times problems will arise that mean the development isn't built 100% as per the permission granted. These could even be small things such as a change in materials after a product they were planning on using becomes unavailable and there is no exact match from other manufacturers. The architect can sign-off that the development is substantially compliant, meaning in their opinion any deviations from the approved plans are so minor as to not to be a contravention of planning policy.

To say the term substantially compliant is meaningless isn't quite fair as both Law Society and Engineers Ireland issue guidance to their members on its use.