Joe Bloggs & his Brother have a Property Development Company (not
limited).
They buy a building and demolish it and demolish the boundary wall with
the adjoining property.
They erect fencing two years ago but since then it has been vandalized.
The owner of the property next door have wrote to the brothers 6 months
ago asking them to secure their land but they have constantly refused
to. The property next door is not occupied and is boarded up so the
insurance is void due to being unoccupied.
Two weeks ago trespassers gained access to the property next door and
set fire to it.
Do the brothers have any insurance that would cover them with regards
the action of third parties. Or would the owners have a claim under the
Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] 3 All ER 349 case.

swayze wrote:
Joe Bloggs & his Brother have a Property Development Company (not
limited).
They buy a building and demolish it and demolish the boundary wall with
the adjoining property.
They erect fencing two years ago but since then it has been vandalized.
The owner of the property next door have wrote to the brothers 6 months
ago asking them to secure their land but they have constantly refused
to. The property next door is not occupied and is boarded up so the
insurance is void due to being unoccupied.
Two weeks ago trespassers gained access to the property next door and
set fire to it.
Do the brothers have any insurance that would cover them with regards
the action of third parties. Or would the owners have a claim under the
Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] 3 All ER 349 case.

I am struggling to see the analogy on Sedleigh-Denfield to the
circumstances you describe.

Sedleigh-Denfield involved a blocked drainage pipe which presented an
ongoing risk to the adjoining property. The neighbour (presumably)
couldn't do anything about the problem, whereas the second party in
your description could.

The next door property could have secured their own property and
erected their own fence if they though the own put up by the developers
was insecure.

In any event, I would argue that the fire damage was caused not by the
lack of proper fencing, but by the actions of the trespassers. Unless
there was a specifically identified risk of trespassers causing
criminal damage I personally can't see how the developers should be
legally liable for this one. At the very least, the next door
neighbour appears to have been contributory negligent.

Tommo wrote:
swayze wrote:
Joe Bloggs & his Brother have a Property Development Company (not
limited).
They buy a building and demolish it and demolish the boundary wall with
the adjoining property.
They erect fencing two years ago but since then it has been vandalized.
The owner of the property next door have wrote to the brothers 6 months
ago asking them to secure their land but they have constantly refused
to. The property next door is not occupied and is boarded up so the
insurance is void due to being unoccupied.
Two weeks ago trespassers gained access to the property next door and
set fire to it.
Do the brothers have any insurance that would cover them with regards
the action of third parties. Or would the owners have a claim under the
Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] 3 All ER 349 case.

I am struggling to see the analogy on Sedleigh-Denfield to the
circumstances you describe.

Sedleigh-Denfield involved a blocked drainage pipe which presented an
ongoing risk to the adjoining property. The neighbour (presumably)
couldn't do anything about the problem, whereas the second party in
your description could.

The next door property could have secured their own property and
erected their own fence if they though the own put up by the developers
was insecure.

In any event, I would argue that the fire damage was caused not by the
lack of proper fencing, but by the actions of the trespassers. Unless
there was a specifically identified risk of trespassers causing
criminal damage I personally can't see how the developers should be
legally liable for this one. At the very least, the next door
neighbour appears to have been contributory negligent.

Sorry i seem to have posted this twice here and uk legal

Tommo there is further infomation over on uk legal regarding the party
wall etc act.
Not sure of the netiqutte involved but do not wish to keep cross
posting Sorry :-)

"The next door property could have secured their own property and
erected their own fence if they though the own put up by the developers
was insecure."
They did this each and every time the squatters gained access but the
squatters seemed to think it was an easy target once they knew it was
empty.The position of the site means they were hidden from view.

"I am struggling to see the analogy on Sedleigh-Denfield to the
circumstances you describe"

In this case an occupier of land was found liable for a nuisance caused
by a trespasser
which he had subsequently allowed to continue.The owners of the plot
had been informed on lots of times regarding these problems.

" The next door property could have secured their own property"
See above

and
erected their own fence if they though the own put up by the developers
was insecure."
They did on their own land but were told by the brothers that if they
errected anything on their land they would seek an injunction for
trespass.

"In any event, I would argue that the fire damage was caused not by the
lack of proper fencing, but by the actions of the trespassers. Unless
there was a specifically identified risk of trespassers causing
criminal damage"

As stated on uk legal Section 7(3) of the Party Wall etc Act.


I personally can't see how the developers should be
legally liable for this one.

"At the very least, the next door neighbour appears to have been
contributory negligent."

Would you still say this now you have more facts ?

Its difficult to get all the facts out in one hit as you are no doubt
aware but we get there in the end.:-)

swayze wrote:

Joe Bloggs & his Brother have a Property Development Company (not
limited).
They buy a building and demolish it and demolish the boundary wall
with the adjoining property.
They erect fencing two years ago but since then it has been
vandalized. The owner of the property next door have wrote to the
brothers 6 months ago asking them to secure their land but they have
constantly refused to. The property next door is not occupied and is
boarded up so the insurance is void due to being unoccupied.
Two weeks ago trespassers gained access to the property next door and
set fire to it.
Do the brothers have any insurance that would cover them with regards
the action of third parties. Or would the owners have a claim under
the Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] 3 All ER 349 case.


Thier is no requirement for Joe and is brother to fence off thier site
if no health and saftey risk is evident

Just because the owners of an adjacent property want them to repair the
fence does not mean they have to , thier is no law stating that you
have to secure your land


Its not joe bloggs problem if the adjacent property is unoccupied and
boarded up , or the owner carries no insurance

Again its not JB fault or problem that the unoccupied house got broken
into or set on fire this is an issue the owner has to deal with

Any insurance the brothers have would not extend to covering the
neighbours property for anything other than thier own negligence
as the brothers have not been negligent then no risk would be covered

Its the owners of the burnt out property responsiblity to secure his or
her own property within the bounds of thier own property boundary

No the owners wouldnt have a claim , that case covered laiblity to
jointly used drainage services where the plaintiff could not effect a
repair or improvement as he was prevented from doing so by the
defendants , in your case nothing stopped you securing your own property




--

Steve Robinson wrote:
swayze wrote:

Joe Bloggs & his Brother have a Property Development Company (not
limited).
They buy a building and demolish it and demolish the boundary wall
with the adjoining property.
They erect fencing two years ago but since then it has been
vandalized. The owner of the property next door have wrote to the
brothers 6 months ago asking them to secure their land but they have
constantly refused to. The property next door is not occupied and is
boarded up so the insurance is void due to being unoccupied.
Two weeks ago trespassers gained access to the property next door and
set fire to it.
Do the brothers have any insurance that would cover them with regards
the action of third parties. Or would the owners have a claim under
the Sedleigh Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] 3 All ER 349 case.


Thier is no requirement for Joe and is brother to fence off thier site
if no health and saftey risk is evident

Just because the owners of an adjacent property want them to repair the
fence does not mean they have to , thier is no law stating that you
have to secure your land


Its not joe bloggs problem if the adjacent property is unoccupied and
boarded up , or the owner carries no insurance

Again its not JB fault or problem that the unoccupied house got broken
into or set on fire this is an issue the owner has to deal with

Any insurance the brothers have would not extend to covering the
neighbours property for anything other than thier own negligence
as the brothers have not been negligent then no risk would be covered

Its the owners of the burnt out property responsiblity to secure his or
her own property within the bounds of thier own property boundary

No the owners wouldnt have a claim , that case covered laiblity to
jointly used drainage services where the plaintiff could not effect a
repair or improvement as he was prevented from doing so by the
defendants , in your case nothing stopped you securing your own property




--

Sorry Steve i am not making myself clear If i can prove negligence,
and i can prove that i have done everything in my power to mitigate my
losses and the Law we would rely on is the Party Wall etc Act 1996
Section 7(3) plus the local authority served the brothers with a
section 81 of the Building Act 1985.
If in these circumstances they had PL Insurance would the insurance
company try to repudiate the policy due to them not conforming to their
statutary resposibilites.

wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 10:10:03 +0000, "Tommo"
wrote:


swayze wrote:
Joe Bloggs & his Brother have a Property Development Company (not
limited).

They now have an empty plot of land next door they can purchase
cheaply too. That is what being a property developer does. He sees an
opportunity and exploits it. The empty house next door was waiting to
be exploited.
pete
--
http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

Erm not quite cause it aint for sale Although i may be intrested in
taking their small plot of their hands !