Legal advice in regards to guiness northern counties please

[Andygs]

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]

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

[Andy1976]

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

 

It can be.

 

If the trampoline has a fault - literally anything - then it's a hazard.

 

The issue for the landowner here is that by accepting it, they would then have to maintain and inspect it. If they knew that it could create a risk (we all know of kids getting injured on them - I've seen broken arms, legs and so on) then they have a duty to make sure that risk is kept to a minimum. They'd likely have to inspect it, and potentially maintain it, which incurs cost, time and effort . Far easier for them to say "actually, get rid of it", dispute agreeing to it being there, and evade any liability.

[Cyclone]

Isn't that the same argument for any landlord?

If a private landlord does a 3 month inspection and see's a trampoline in the garden, they're not going to demand it's removed incase it's unsafe. No more than when they see an old car in the garage will they demand to see an MOT, or when they see a cycle leaning on the wall demand that it be removed.

 

Most things can be unsafe, I'm just not sure how the landlord becomes responsible for the residents unsafe items. The only difference I can see is that with a shared space the item might not belong to ALL the residents, and so some of the residents who don't own it might be exposed to it's dangers...

[Andy1976]

Isn't that the same argument for any landlord?

If a private landlord does a 3 month inspection and see's a trampoline in the garden, they're not going to demand it's removed in case it's unsafe. No more than when they see an old car in the garage will they demand to see an MOT, or when they see a cycle leaning on the wall demand that it be removed.

 

Most things can be unsafe, I'm just not sure how the landlord becomes responsible for the residents unsafe items. The only difference I can see is that with a shared space the item might not belong to ALL the residents, and so some of the residents who don't own it might be exposed to it's dangers...

 

That's one of the main reasons. Using my example above, injured child could sue each and every person with possible responsibility for putting the trampoline there, inspecting and maintaining it. They certainly could do that, and in reality, should do that.

 

The reality of course is that Mr Law Firm will see 30 potential defendants and think, "That claim form will be a bloody nightmare to create, and I'm not sending 30 letters of claim!". Since the advent of fixed costs, they'd certainly think that (same costs if you succeed against one or all defendants).

 

The easier way to avoid that, in such a case, is to sue the landlord. They have a liability in theory that could be sued under. The same question applies to them (Landlords) as to the Claimant's lawyers - given they don't get paid at all (see below) can they be bothered spending hours tracking and adding 30 potential defendants? Since QOCS came in, Mr Landlord doesn't get his legal fees paid, even if he successfully defends the claim - little Ellen above sues him, and even if she fails against him, the costs of defending that claim have to be met by the landlord. Fair? Probably not, but law isn't.

 

As a result of the government's costs cutting, these things just settle. Claimants know that, so will sue the landlord in such cases, and landlords know they would face a massive costs bill bringing in numerous defendants, so simply settle. It's certainly kept things out of the Courts, which was the aim, but it's not fair by any measure.

 

Your example of a single landlord should now be clearer. You have one Defendant or the other. It's easier with choosing between two potential defendants.

 

The other point relates to access. Private gardens are exactly that - private. Public areas maintained at joint expense are accessible by almost anyone - residents, friends of residents, families etc. Even though all are invited, there's a vast potential risk group. With a private house, it's just those people directly invited in, so the occupier (tenant) is seen as having more control, and more responsibility to make visitors aware of risks.

 

That's leaving aside the liability to trespassers under the 84 Act of course.

 

This can be a lengthy, lengthy subject!!!

[Cyclone]

Thanks, always happy to learn something.

[Andy1976]

Thanks, always happy to learn something.

 

It's all very random stuff that never, ever happens in real life! The reality is that nothing would happen if these people had a trampoline of course, but that doesn't stop whoever insures the landlord (or their legal team) stomping their feet!

[Hippogriff]

As a Landlord, my ASTs have a clause in there that states no trampoline (or various other stuff like slides etc.) should be put in the garden, which might seem a bit Draconian but I give Tenants at least a week to review it and request changes if they want (I'd consider) but I've never had anyone ask. I think it's always best to be crystal clear. Apart from the annoyance factor to surrounding properties, of a trampoline, if a Tenant installed one where someone fell off onto a paving slab and even wanted to try and sue me, even though they were the people who placed it in a silly place, I would not be ecstatic. I take my own safety obligations seriously, I don't want extra worry. I would be on the side of the company in this situation, as described. It seems like the path of least risk, for me, for everyone.

[Cyclone]

What if they fall off a set of stepladders? Or just trip over a bit of grass?

 

Install suggests something rather more permanent than simply "put", which is probably more accurate.

[Hippogriff]

It's OK, I like that you like a good argument. A rational person (this might not be you) understands that you can try to limit your risks by taking sensible precautions, but you can probably not eliminate them altogether. Low-hanging fruit.