help and advice please- Caravan fire damage

[Parksy]

The owner of the trailer that caught fire had rented the plot of land which constituted a pitch from the site owner who, if he had made provision for fire fighting (and the use of 2 extinguishers suggests that he had) would not be responsible for the incident. The Rylands vs Fletcher precedent mentions the land of the defendant but this could be held to mean 'land used or rented by the defendant from another and on which goods were kept or stored which caused damage to the property of the plaintiff'.
In plain language this means that ownership of the land on which the incident took place is irrelevant and although suing the site owner is one possible avenue there would be a greater chance of success in my humble opinion if Bertie first of all wrote to the other caravan and trailer owner via recorded delivery setting out the damage caused and the amount of money needed to settle this matter before legal proceedings were initiated. The question of negligence or blame should be avoided entirely and the letter should be sent to the person and not his insurers. Included in the letter should be a specified time frame in which the other caravan owner could be reasonably expected to reply and copies of this letter should be retained.
If the other caravan owner does not reply then there is no alternative other than to instigate County Court proceedings against this person (NOT his insurers!! it's up to him to claim off his insurance, not you.) By contacting this guy with an offer for him to settle the matter out of court Bertie will be showing that his pursuance of the claim is reasonable, do not enter into any verbal dialogue at all with the other caran owner but conduct all of these matters in writing.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Bertie.

I am puzzled by your solicitors advice. He must have had some reason for advising you the way he did, which seems to contrary to the principals of law. It is for this reason that I think we have not had all the relevant information.

Equally If we have had all the salient points, then inmy opinion either your solicitor has given you poor advice, or there is some underlying tenent of the law that we are not aware of. I openely admit I am not legally trained, but together with others here we seem to have covered most of the usuall points, and we don't see any bar to you suing the defendant for damages.
I am confident that if the defendants fire had caused any damage to council property they woudl be after him without fear or favour.
I seriously think you need to seek a second professional opinion.

 

[JonnyG]

I am sorry bertie but what we have here is not un typical. When people quote "the law" and your rights, it all looks so easy on paper, and indeed if it was as easy as it looks on paper, you would have been compensated by now and not be going through what must be a stressful time. I endorse what the prof has said, you possibly need a second opinion and some solicitors do give a free half hour that you could possibly take advantage of.Also how good is you home insurance? some policies offer proper legal advice and can actually be of great help. good luck

 

[Parksy]

Parksy
IMO the Landmark precedent you quote , Rylands - v- Fletcher may well have some relevance here but more so perhaps in regard to the site owner who allowed a "defective" ( my words) caravan or trailer onto his land causing damage to Bertie's property.

Hi Dustydog
My interpretation of Rylands vs Fletcher is that Bertie does not have to prove that the other guys caravan or trailer were "defective".
What Bertie needs to do is to prove that his own caravan was damaged because of a fire that started on someone else's property, in this case the other guys trailer or his caravan.
Bertie does not have to worry about what caused the fire, whether the other guy was negligent or not has absolutely no bearing on this case.
The salient points are that a caravan or a trailer would not in the normal course of events be expected to catch fire for any reason.
This other chap's caravan or his trailer DID catch fire, the reasons why it caught fire are no concern of Berties.
The fire which started within this other guys property is allegedly the direct cause of the damage to Berties property, his caravan.
Bertie only needs to prove that his caravan was damaged as a result of this particular incident, it doesn't matter why the incident occurred.
The only defence open to this other guy would be that Bertie's caravan was NOT damaged as a result of this particular incident so if the site owner would be prepared to swear that Berties caravan was undamaged before the fire but damaged as a result of the fire Bertie will win.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Parksy
Without wishing to sound like a parrot we do not have the full story here. Bertie has witnesses to the fact his caravan was damaged by the seasonal's fire. Thus from what you say he shouldn't be experiencing the current difficulties nor on the face of it the very poor advice from his original solicitor . In theory then this should have settled very easily??Something doesn't add up for me here.
Bertie'
What exactly did the solicitor say?
Are you a member of one of the Clubs. They may be able to offer some legal guidance . towards a better qualified solicitor perhaps?
You say you have commended a small claims court action. Are you doing this alone or with legal guidance from another solicitor?
Hope your weekend is more relaxing.

 

[colin-yorkshire1]

hi,
All of the above remarks by parksy are I believe to be true, but the reason I posted about also going after the site owner as well is because of the fact that it is possible some of the site rules ie (in case of a fire) may have been breached you know the ones the council set before the site owner had to sign up to before being given a licence, these cover many aspects like distance between units the number and type of fire fighting appliances per number of units on site and the distance of these from the units also the supposed seat of the fire was a trailer not a van it's self, " what rules were there in force regarding these", note, we have heard of problems of this nature from "steve in leo" in the past with site owners quoting fire regulations as the basis,
plus it must also be rembered that the site owner has a duty of care for peoples and property entering is site some have signs up to the contrary but the fact is once he takes your money he does have a responsibility of sorts.
we had such a sign at work in the carpark a member of staff had her car stolen from it the company denied any responsibility at all however her insurance succesfully reclaimed the extra costs because a security guard opened the gate for the thief ???.
I know this is of no use in Bertie's case but shows how fine the line can be to prove negligence.
as for Parksy's suggestion about sending a letter to the other van owner yes good idea "however" I suspect he will just forward it to his insurance company?? the reason for this is obvious his policy will have a section for third party liability so he cannot be sued independantly for a claim against him, when the occurance was subject to an event covererd by his policy.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello colin,

Not quite on the topic here but you make an interesting point:-

we had such a sign at work in the carpark a member of staff had her car stolen from it the company denied any responsibility at all however her insurance succesfully reclaimed the extra costs because a security guard opened the gate for the thief ???.

This is rather interesting, Can you clarify when you say the 'company' do you mean the car park operator, or was it the owner of the site. And what leverage did the insurance company use to get the company to pay out?

A very similar situation arrises when you leave a caravan in a "secure" storage compund (e.g Cassoa.) The compound operators try to avoid any laibility for owners caravans if they get damaged or stolen. Somehow they manage to get away with it. Perhaps the incident you relate may give hope to those poor souls who pay extra to keep their caravan 'secure' yet find that when they suffer a loss the security provider denies any liability for the lapse in their systems.

I have long maintained that if they operate a 'security system' that restricts access, they are culpable if they allow a theif or vandal into their compund.

 

[Surfer]

Hello colin,

Not quite on the topic here but you make an interesting point:-

we had such a sign at work in the carpark a member of staff had her car stolen from it the company denied any responsibility at all however her insurance succesfully reclaimed the extra costs because a security guard opened the gate for the thief ???.

This is rather interesting, Can you clarify when you say the 'company' do you mean the car park operator, or was it the owner of the site. And what leverage did the insurance company use to get the company to pay out?

A very similar situation arrises when you leave a caravan in a "secure" storage compund (e.g Cassoa.) The compound operators try to avoid any laibility for owners caravans if they get damaged or stolen. Somehow they manage to get away with it. Perhaps the incident you relate may give hope to those poor souls who pay extra to keep their caravan 'secure' yet find that when they suffer a loss the security provider denies any liability for the lapse in their systems.

I have long maintained that if they operate a 'security system' that restricts access, they are culpable if they allow a theif or vandal into their compund.

T & Cs that prevent you from claiming in case of damage etc are deemed unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as you have paid for the service.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Surfer

I quite agree, but have you actually paid for the security, because most of the site opereators will say security of your property is not part of the service they are selling, Even though they make great play on it in their advertisng and enticements to get you to use thier site over someone elses.

I hope it never happens to anyone, but it essence it needs someone who has suffered a loss whist their property was in the care of a 'secure' storage site to sue the site for the sites failure to supply and maintain what they are basically selling - security.
I maintian the comparison with a bank . If you deposit your money into their care, if they get burgled, you dont have to claim on your insurance, the bank has to refund either from profit or from insurances. Any business that cites security as part of their advertsisng featuers should have the same risk to their profit as the banks.

 

[Surfer]

Hello Surfer

I quite agree, but have you actually paid for the security, because most of the site opereators will say security of your property is not part of the service they are selling, Even though they make great play on it in their advertisng and enticements to get you to use thier site over someone elses.

I hope it never happens to anyone, but it essence it needs someone who has suffered a loss whist their property was in the care of a 'secure' storage site to sue the site for the sites failure to supply and maintain what they are basically selling - security.
I maintian the comparison with a bank . If you deposit your money into their care, if they get burgled, you dont have to claim on your insurance, the bank has to refund either from profit or from insurances. Any business that cites security as part of their advertsisng featuers should have the same risk to their profit as the banks.

If you pay to store your caravan it is implied that it is safe storage which is why you can claim if there is a break in or the caravan is stolen which is why the insurance company can possibly claim from the storage site or leave it up to you to claim.

 

[Bertie13]

Colin, Prof and Dusty
The fact are as written previously there is no more, the fact is through no fault of our own our caravan is officially a right off. I have had an engineers report and he believes it would not be economical to fix it.
The caravan and trailer was over 6 metres away from our van but the intense heat caused the damage to ours.
My solicitor has maintained that for us to sue the insurance company we need actual hard evidence to prove negligence, therefore we needed information from the van owner to support us, this was obviously not forth coming and actually we received official notice from his solicitors that our solicitor was breaking a code of conduct in pursueing the van owner. We discussed the option that would give us a better chance of winning was to go through small claims, this would mean if we did lose we may not have to pay costs.
Today i received notification from the van owners insurance company that they have put the matter into their solicitors hands to represent the van owner. so even though I am seeking compansation from the van owner, he will be represented by his insurances solicitors. I know this is tactics in trying to frighten us but I cant help feeling some trepidation in proceeding with this. I would be representing myself in court but I suppose I need to seriously think of having a solicitor with me. This would mean more cost to me, not withstanding the loss of the caravan I am out of pocket by some £1200 and now with the possibility of more costs.
How can people sleep at night, when they cuase damage to someone else's property why can't they admit it and pay. We have done nothing wrong here.
Regards
Bertie ( rather concerned and totally cheesed off)

 

[proterra]

As you say they are putting frighteneres on you , If you go court stick to the facts, write everything down beforehand and have it to hand so if they ntry to flummax you just say hold on whilst I refer to my notes. they may back down at the last moment and not turn up.
if you have photos take them with you etc

 

[Dustydog]

Colin, Prof and Dusty
The fact are as written previously there is no more, the fact is through no fault of our own our caravan is officially a right off. I have had an engineers report and he believes it would not be economical to fix it.
The caravan and trailer was over 6 metres away from our van but the intense heat caused the damage to ours.
My solicitor has maintained that for us to sue the insurance company we need actual hard evidence to prove negligence, therefore we needed information from the van owner to support us, this was obviously not forth coming and actually we received official notice from his solicitors that our solicitor was breaking a code of conduct in pursueing the van owner. We discussed the option that would give us a better chance of winning was to go through small claims, this would mean if we did lose we may not have to pay costs.
Today i received notification from the van owners insurance company that they have put the matter into their solicitors hands to represent the van owner. so even though I am seeking compansation from the van owner, he will be represented by his insurances solicitors. I know this is tactics in trying to frighten us but I cant help feeling some trepidation in proceeding with this. I would be representing myself in court but I suppose I need to seriously think of having a solicitor with me. This would mean more cost to me, not withstanding the loss of the caravan I am out of pocket by some £1200 and now with the possibility of more costs.
How can people sleep at night, when they cuase damage to someone else's property why can't they admit it and pay. We have done nothing wrong here.
Regards
Bertie ( rather concerned and totally cheesed off)

My solicitor has maintained that for us to sue the insurance company we need actual hard evidence to prove negligence, therefore we needed information from the van owner to support us, this was obviously not forth coming and actually we received official notice from his solicitors that our solicitor was breaking a code of conduct in pursueing the van owner.
Bertie ,
This is not correct. You cannot and do not sue the Insurance company . Under Insurance Contract law there is a thing called Subrogation whereby the Insurers "stand in the shoes" of their Insured. You sue their Insured , thus on a Writ their Insured is named but NOT the Insurer. The Insurer then deals with the Litigation in the name of their Insured. Similarly had you been insured and your Insurers paid you they could then issue Legal Proceedings against the culpable party but with you named as the Plaintiff.

Personally , imo , your solicitor is correct about proving negligence on the owner of the trailer. In Law you are basically concerned with either Contract Law or Law of Tort which among many facets includes Negligence.
I suggested to you before that you do need to press the Fire Brigade for a more accurate report. The material facts are still sparse to me.
You need to consider obtaining your own Forensic Scientists Report. There are a number of excellent experts available to you . However you will have to pay their costs up front.
As far as the Code of Conduct is concerned the TP Solicitors are correct. Any future discussions must be with the TP's Insurers Solicitors who are dealing with this matter on behalf of the TP.
Ok none of this helps you but all is not yet lost.

Caustaion is the major factor you have to discover and with demonstrable evidence prove the fire started through the trailer owners negligence .
I have yet to see a fire where the cause hasn't been either extraneous or more often where electrical wiring , through age and neglect has failed causing a short circuit and thus a fire. Prof John told you about the gas pipe date code markings. Were you able to find anymore on this front? It i spossible the gas pipe was connecte dcorrectly? I wonder why the Fire Brigade have been so vague. More pressure on the County Chief Fire Officer may help.
As far as the site owner goes, I do not think he can just walk away. You have no written contract with him so one must assume his Duty to you at Common Law is to protect your property from the dangers of fire. If he has allowed the TP to bring onto his land something that is inherently unsafe , dangerous, a fire risk, then he has some culpability here.

Have you spken to the bottle gas manufacturer, Calor Gas?', regarding correct usage of the gas cylinder and fridge?
I was just wondering if it is possible to demonstrate the TP was using this equipment incorrectly? A Forensic Scientist would know the answer.

Litigation is not cheap but if you win you will get all your costs back. The real concern is losing. Unfortunately you will be come liable for the other sides costs.
If it was me I'd try and gather as much tangible evidence as possible so I could prove to a Court that the fire was solely caused by the negligent fault of the TP. I'd find a good Litigation Solicitor with a proven track record and go for teh jugular!
What part of the Country do you live in?

I do hope you get this sorted Bertie. Good Luck.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Bertie,

I'm sorry this saga is not over, yet.

I normally find Dusty's answers on this sort of subject to be well founded, and not beeing trained in these matters my view may well be wrong, but I still cannot see why you need to prove negligence if all you are doing is seeking damages through the small claims court.

The matter is clearly beyond simple resolution, and I return to the thought that I think you need to seek a second professional opinion, from someone who can review all the available information and documents.

 

[Dustydog]

Hello Bertie,

I'm sorry this saga is not over, yet.

I normally find Dusty's answers on this sort of subject to be well founded, and not beeing trained in these matters my view may well be wrong, but I still cannot see why you need to prove negligence if all you are doing is seeking damages through the small claims court.

The matter is clearly beyond simple resolution, and I return to the thought that I think you need to seek a second professional opinion, from someone who can review all the available information and documents.

Good Morning John
We both agree the circumstances on causation are not crystal clear.
Say for example the fire had been caused by unknown persons, arson, Bertie's case would be hopeless as there is no way we can sue theTP.
Looking back on all the posts here yours included , a lot of good sound advice has been forthcoming.
Putting all that advice together three aspects warrent further investigation imo.
1. Causation. Why did thid fire happen?
2. Parksy's reference to Rylands -v - Fletcher which primarily set the Legal standard on the principle of Negligence.
3. The site Owner's liability.
In regard to No1 if I were Bertie I'd pursue this aspect in much greater detail as I described previously
No3 , a point you yourself have raised many a time. I agree the Owner cannot just walk away from this. In fact his responsibility at Common Law is probably greater than had a written Contract been in force. One for Bertie to reconsider?
I'm away for a few weeks from today so I do hope Bertie finds a satisfactory resolution to his problem.

 

[Surfer]

You can always opt for the small claims court which is a fraction of the cost and the other side cannot impose a huge levy if you did lose, but you will need to be able to prove that the damage was done due to the fire. I would think that negligence becomes irrelevant as you are claiming for the dmage their caravan caused to yours. Almost as if they had reversed into your caravan. I would also get a second opinion from another solicitor and CAB.

 

[TD42]

I would like to present another view. the fire started in the trailer containing a gas bottle & a fridge. The trailer I suspect was not covered by insurance,so is the 3rd parties responsibility. His caravan is covered & therefore his insurer payed out for damage to his caravan,but are not liable for damage caused to Berti's van as the cause of the fire was in the trailer,which is not covered by insurance. As such Berti needs to claim direct from the 3rd party. Its stated that the 3rd party was not on site? was he holidaying in the van at the time & due back that day? if not was he negligent leaving the gas supply on. was the gas hose connected properly & in date .What caused the gas to ignite? as said under this scenario berti would need to produce evidence of negligence on the part of the 3rd party,& claim against him(not the insurance company)

Berti have you legal cover on your home insurance,or car insurance.Are you member of the C&CC CC , Or perhaps the CSMA? if so I would be getting 2nd & 3rd opinions from them
I really hope you are successful in resolving this satisfactory
TD 42

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello TD42,

I had considered almost exactly the same senario, I wondered if the trailer was insured or not, and what role the insurance company is taking. It defending the claim becasue the trailer was covered or are they providing legal defence becasue the defendant has that cover as part of a household insurance. Frankly there is so much we do not know it is all pure supposition.

 

[Parksy]

You mention a 'trailer' which caught fire. Did this fire start in the neighbouring caravan, a trailer or where? The guy's caravan was presumably destroyed in the fire and his insurance company seem to have paid for his replacement caravan but if the fire actually started in some trailer what has this got to do with any insurance company unless the trailer was insured by them as well? I get the impression that because you were not covered by any insurance policy this guy is trying to scare you away from seeking recompense for the damage caused by his property to your property. Caravan insurance is desirable but it is not compulsory in this country and a county court judgement will not base it's finding on whether you were insured or not, if you can prove that his property has caused damage to your property you should succeed. If the guy does decide to 'fight it with a solicitor' then engage a solicitor of your own who you feel confident will take up this fight on your behalf and claim the costs when you win.

We're covering old ground here, I mentioned this over two weeks ago in post #14

 

[Dustydog]

Hello TD42,

I had considered almost exactly the same senario, I wondered if the trailer was insured or not, and what role the insurance company is taking. It defending the claim becasue the trailer was covered or are they providing legal defence becasue the defendant has that cover as part of a household insurance. Frankly there is so much we do not know it is all pure supposition.

Hi John
The NCC guidelines may be of some use here in so far as they do make recommendations on fridge / gas usage. See http://www.nationalcaravan.co.uk/home/index.asp?id=22&rid=429
Whilst not a Law they will still carry some relevance in demonstrating a reasonable duty of care at common law.

I suspect the unit in the trailer was a bit of a Heath Robinson affair and the site Owner also imo has a duty of care to everyone else on his site. It was of course he / she who allowed this trailer etc onto his land.
The one thing that still puzzles me is "Causation". Once we know that I think Bertie may be able to progress matters further.
Correct me if I am wrong but there is a thing called "criminal neglect". Again it may be possible to pursue this angle against both the Trailer Owner and Site Owner.
Good luck Bertie
Keep us posted.

 

[TD42]

so you did Parksy ,seems like I may be guilty of a bit of plagiarism

or is it great minds think a like

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Dusty
Apart from reiterating that I am still not convinced that Bertie has to prove negligence to be able to claim damages from this full timer, Bertie needs to get a second proper legal advice about his available courses of action. So until any new or conclusive information comes to light I am refraining from making further specific comments.

I looked on the link you gave, and I couldn't find anything direcetly related to fridge / gas usage, however I did find the Caravan Towing Guide, which does not perpetuate some of the references to outdated traditions that I and others have often complained about - it still isnt perfect but progress can be slow sometimes.

I concure that site operators (who may not be the land owner) do have a duty; to as far as is reasonably practical ensure the health and safety of all persons that have access to the sites and its facilities. It may be sufficient for Site operators to provide fire fighting equipment to meet fire regulations, but other health and safety risks must be covered by other intiatives.

However it does follow that if a fire on one pitch can affact and damage property on another pitch, that must also represent a danger or hazard to personnel on site - so is that actionable?.
There can be other consequences to fires and similar incidents, Splillage or release of checmicals may be a healteh hazard or even and enviromental hazard to ground and water courses. The spread of these agents may be exsasurbated by the water used to put out the fire. The site operator is required to clean up any such agents.

I'm not sure if there is an offence of 'Criminal Neglect' but criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences) - the fact is that negligence in this context is pursued through Health & Safety legislation which deems it to be a criminal offence. As such the proof of negligence has to be that of criminal law which is looks for proof beyond reasoanable doubt.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Bertie
Any progress?

 

[Surfer]

Hi Bertie
Any progress?

Bertie has probably disappeared. As you don't get email notifications like you do on every other caravan forum, the thread gets forgotten about.

 

[kelvin3]

Just reading through and came to some points made by dustydog.

“Trying to limit your claim wont help; it's a legal point of principle they are defending. Innocent until proven guilty.”

This although true is not true? small claims are on balance of probability and is up to a judge!

“Sad to say the onus is on you to prove beyond all reasonable doubt”

Again - This although true is not true? small claims are on balance of probability and is up to a judge

Sorry Dustydog but you have been watching too many detective shows on TV.

Prof J L said the same in the following post.

Bertie try and detach your emotions and be cold and calculating because this is how to win on balance of probabiliy. Small claims is under 5K but a judge can and will accept small claims in excess of 5K, you just have to ask for permission. Why not fight it yourself?

Also precedent carry less weight in small claims and the judges tend to be more common law bias (can you tell this is a pet subject of mine)

You do not have to prove, here’s an example:

Dustydog slips (sorry dusty) on a banana skin, nobody saw me drop the skin but someone saw me eating a banana in that area. No one can proove that it was me who dropped it but on balance of probability it probably was and therefore in small claims I can be held responsible.

The common law judge in small cliams listens to two sides of a story and aportions blame

If your still looking for windows there is a good chap in Gt Brigde, Tipton, West Midlands. I got a front window (after some nice hooligans &^%%*&^%^%$^%$) busted mine trying to get in and it only cost me £99, but watch it he’ll rattle your head off.

Unsure if this posted the first time (compatability my butt) if it did sorry, if not ignor this