Legal advice in regards to guiness northern counties please

[kieronsheff2 10]

Hi all,

 

Would like some advice of possible,

 

Living in a guiness northern counties flat we have a large cominal garnden surrounding us that my children and alot of other residents children use,

 

Having nothing for them to do and "guiness" banning ball games we decided to all chip in and buy a brand new trampoline with enclosure at the cost of £200,

 

Within a week we had all recieved letters stating that we had to remove the trampoline due to them having no insurance, when asked what insurance ha to do with it they replied we are simply not covered and the trampoline must be removed,

 

Our point being it inst there property to have insurance for, we all know the risks of our children using an itsm that we have bought them so how cpuld we possibly blame guiness if something happend?

 

We have all arranged a meating with the housing officer in charge and would like to no where we stand in regards to tbe insurance problem and what we could possibly do to stop them removing it?

 

Thanks for reading

Regards

Kieron

[AnthonyTapp 10]

It's most likely to be Public Liability insurance in case one of the kids gets hurt ,all good brokers should be able to sort you out with it

[ECCOnoob 1,053]

^^^^^ what they said.

 

Guinness NC are the owners of the land. Just because the trampoline doesn't belong to them is irrelevant. As owners of the land they are wholly liable for anything that happens in those gardens. If some kid gets hurt the Claimants will be knocking on their door.

[Andy1976 10]

Full reasoning is this...

 

Occupiers Liability Act (1957 if you want specifics) creates a liability for injuries caused to persons on the land owned or occupied. There's also a tort of allowing dangerous or hazardous items to remain on that property.

 

Put simply, let's say little Suzy brings her friend Ellen round one day to play. Ellen's parents don't live on the site. Whilst on the trampoline, it breaks. A leg snaps. Ellen falls off from a metre or two, and her leg snaps.

 

Under the OLA, the parents' first port of call is the occupier, which as managing agent, is the company telling you to move this thing.

 

If they know about it (they certainly should, as they have a duty to inspect the premises regularly) then if they don't move it, they are seen to condone it. If they condone it being their, it needs to be part of their inspections. They need to be sure it's safe, maintained, installed correctly etc. If they can't prove those things, they're liable for little Ellen's broken leg.

 

You buying insurance won't likely help, unless you as a collective create a legal entity (or sign something agreeing to accept liability for all injuries/accidents caused by it).

 

Guinness are being sensible commercially. If they've asked you to move it, then little Ellen will sue you as a group if/when she breaks her leg. The next step is that they will forcibly move it for you. They have to be seen to be doing all they can reasonably do.

 

By putting it there, you're adding to their responsibilities legally, creating a duty to maintain this thing, check it's installed properly, regularly inspect it - all at a cost that they won't recover.

 

Short answer - they're absolutely right. If you really want it there, some sort of communal written contract accepting any liability and setting out your method of meeting any claim might (although unlikely) satisfy them, but you're in for a challenge I suspect.

 

Hope that helps

Mr Personal Injury lawyer of 20 years

[kieronsheff2 10]

Thanks fr everyones reply the trampoline has got a saftey enclosure and is also pad locked when un supervised as our children are all under 8, if i was to look into us all writing a contract up and sorting out inaurance how mich is this likley to cost and what is tbe proper way of doing it

[mrsmontague 10]

Hi, I live in a Guinness Northern Counties bungalow, they have strict rules about everything, and quite inflexible, THE DEVELOPMENT I LIVE ON IS FOR THE OVER 55s.

My neighbours are also beyond intolorent, a real bunch of miseries.

I have two lovely dogs, who are my pride and joy, groomed, bathed every week, I NEVER leave any mess, they may leave behind, I carry poo bags everywhere.

Several people put in complaints about fouling, IT WAS NEVER MY DOGS ! !

eventualy they realised, it was urban foxes, and cat poo.

My point being, GNC, arnt the easiest landlords, and can realy dig there heels in !

I wish you luck with the trampoline issue, children need to play ! ! !

I have tried to find a decent exchange, but those on offer are horrible dwellings, run down , dirty, I will stay where I am, and sadly ignore most of my neighbours.

[kieronsheff2 10]

We have a brilliant neighbourhood all the people here are fantastic, they have have not recieved one complaint about the tranpoline, it is being mentioned to the star and hopefully we will have their support, as for now we will fight guiness till the end after yestersdays comments they made at a meeting, one of witch is "theyd rather the kids stay inside over the 7 weeks rather than making noise" witch is discustig i think, our plan is to keep an eye on the trampoline an when somebody does come to try and take it wel see f they want to take the kids with them seen as theyl be protesting on it

[mrsmontague 10]

Again, best of luck !They are severe task masters, be very careful, they may try to intimidate you with eviction, and termination of your tennency.

I think it is grossly unfair on children, that their lesure time is spoiled,i agree that children need to be mindful of other people, and keep the noise reasonable, but come on, let them play, they are children !

I feel the summer holiday should be split in two, and not one long holiday, for school children, its hard on parents, especialy, those on a small income, to keep children occupied, at least parks are free, and the countryside.

Children like to play near home, so lets hope they can have some compassion.

[Ms Macbeth 76]

I understand that parents want their children to play, but shared equipment on a communal space isn't going to be popular with everyone. Maybe no one has complained, but it doesn't mean everyone who may live there wants to listen to children bouncing (and squealing) on a trampoline outside their home. My son and his family live on a small private estate. Houses and flats, some with children. They pay a management fee to cover maintenance of the communal grounds, planted areas plus a very large grassed area.

 

Some of the parents wanted to buy play equipment, and there is plenty of space, so they put the suggestion to the management committee. They were turned down for reasons much as described by Andy1976. Luckily they hadn't spent any money before making the suggestion. My grandchildren would have enjoyed it, the individual gardens aren't big enough for trampolines or climbing frames, and there are no parks nearby.

[Cyclone 10]

Full reasoning is this...

 

Occupiers Liability Act (1957 if you want specifics) creates a liability for injuries caused to persons on the land owned or occupied. There's also a tort of allowing dangerous or hazardous items to remain on that property.

 

Put simply, let's say little Suzy brings her friend Ellen round one day to play. Ellen's parents don't live on the site. Whilst on the trampoline, it breaks. A leg snaps. Ellen falls off from a metre or two, and her leg snaps.

 

Under the OLA, the parents' first port of call is the occupier, which as managing agent, is the company telling you to move this thing.

 

If they know about it (they certainly should, as they have a duty to inspect the premises regularly) then if they don't move it, they are seen to condone it. If they condone it being their, it needs to be part of their inspections. They need to be sure it's safe, maintained, installed correctly etc. If they can't prove those things, they're liable for little Ellen's broken leg.

 

You buying insurance won't likely help, unless you as a collective create a legal entity (or sign something agreeing to accept liability for all injuries/accidents caused by it).

 

Guinness are being sensible commercially. If they've asked you to move it, then little Ellen will sue you as a group if/when she breaks her leg. The next step is that they will forcibly move it for you. They have to be seen to be doing all they can reasonably do.

 

By putting it there, you're adding to their responsibilities legally, creating a duty to maintain this thing, check it's installed properly, regularly inspect it - all at a cost that they won't recover.

 

Short answer - they're absolutely right. If you really want it there, some sort of communal written contract accepting any liability and setting out your method of meeting any claim might (although unlikely) satisfy them, but you're in for a challenge I suspect.

 

Hope that helps

Mr Personal Injury lawyer of 20 years

 

Following the same reasoning, no-one renting a private house with a garden would be allowed to have a trampoline in case the landlord was held responsible.

[Andygs 10]

Following the same reasoning, no-one renting a private house with a garden would be allowed to have a trampoline in case the landlord was held responsible.

 

Not quite.

 

The concept of occupier changes in group vs single occupation although that said you can sue a landlord for actions of a tenant (eg noise) if the landlord knows about it and does nothing.

 

Another example. Tenant damages property creating hazard. Landlord with maintenance duties knows but does nothing. He can be sued.

 

A lot of it relates to the landlords knowledge and permission.

[Cyclone 10]

A trampoline on a garden isn't a hazard though... Is it? Whether the garden is single occupier or shared doesn't alter that.