The Car Has Been Damaged in a Residential Car Park by The Fallen Downpipe. - Whose Liability Is This?

YB on 04/02/2020 - 21:37
Last edited 06/02/2020 - 13:58 by 1 other user

Hi all,

My car was parked in its designated spot in the residential unit. FYI, the whole building owned by a single owner and managed by one real estate agent/strata. I am a tenant.

Please refer to attached picture. rusted downpipe falls on my car, left-hand side mirror of my car has been broken with few scratched on the front left door.

Contacted a real estate agent for them to accept liability and repair my car under their insurance. Agent denies liability by saying "it was an accident, contact your car insurer and fix it"

I have set an excess amount of my insurance is $2000 to reduce insurance premium as I am confident for my driving. I am hesitant to go to insurance just in case I will have to pay an excess.

I am with Woolworths car insurance. They asked me to check with building management first, if they are taking liability then I don't need to lodge a claim with my insurance.

Whose liability is this?
What option do I have?

Please advise. Many thanks

Automotive

Comments

  • Hybroid on 04/02/2020 - 21:40
    +4

    Most car parks will have a sign (or you will have signed/agreed to T&Cs) to say you park at your own risk and they are not liable for anything that happens to your car. Put in a claim and let your insurance company deal with it and they can go after the owner if they see fit.

    • bobbified on 04/02/2020 - 21:47
      +11

      Most car parks will have a sign (or you will have signed/agreed to T&Cs) to say you park at your own risk and they are not liable for anything that happens to your car.

      I think this only applies to public carparks. Even then, it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

      But you're right - OP should lodge a claim with his insurance and let them deal with it.

      • MS Paint on 04/02/2020 - 22:00

        Op will need to pay excess if he goes through own insurance. Bit unfair.

        • bobbified on 04/02/2020 - 22:02
          +14

          Op will need to pay excess if he goes through own insurance.

          If they find another party to be liable (in this case, the Owners Corp), the excess gets refunded. Some of the larger insurance companies might recognise immediately that the OC is responsible and not charge the excess upfront.

          • MS Paint on 04/02/2020 - 22:03

            @bobbified: OK. Thanks

          • Bargain80 on 05/02/2020 - 12:20
            +2

            @bobbified: regardless of paying excess or not, OP will be flagged as having made claim.
            On the next renewal, the premium might increase because of that.

            Seems unfair but that's how it is.

            • bobbified on 05/02/2020 - 13:13

              @Bargain80:

              Seems unfair but that's how it is.

              It does.. but if the building refuses to take responsibility, then there's no real choice. In this case, the excess may eventually not be applicable if the insurer determines that liability rests with the building.

              In other cases, such as when your car gets damaged by some unknown person while parked at the station or wherever, there's no chance of getting the excess back and it'll be marked as an at-fault claim.

              Luckily though, there are some insurers only ask about "at-fault" claims.

            • berry580 on 06/02/2020 - 23:04

              @Bargain80: Yeah, that's how this world works.
              Alternatively OP can hire Harvey Spector to make OC oblige.
              Guess which option would be more cost effective? ;)

            • Altitud on 07/02/2020 - 08:28

              @Bargain80: That's normally due to at fault claims - not just "all" claims.

              • Bargain80 on 07/02/2020 - 10:13

                @Altitud: it applies to all claims.
                some insurer might be different.
                and at fault claims might have more weight.
                but it applies to all claims.

                See here:

                How claiming affects your no claim bonus
                Insurers have different terms and conditions about how claiming affects your bonus.

                Generally, if you're at fault and you make a claim, you'll either lose your bonus or it will be reduced. This means the cost of your insurance will go up.

                Even if you're not at fault, insurers may increase your premium after you make a claim. They may do this based on:

                not being able to recover the costs for your claim from the other driver
                the type of accident — for example, theft, windscreen damage, or hitting an animal may be considered 'at fault' claims

      • Hybroid on 04/02/2020 - 23:22
        +2

        Applies to private car parks too. Provided it doesn't contravene ACL or is misleading, then it's binding contract. If OP can prove this incident was due to negligence or improper maintenance then that might be a potential get out but will be tough to substantiate. Best go through insurance, that's what it's there for.

        When you enter a private car park, you are entering into a contract with the operator and agreeing to a set of terms and conditions.

        https://www.qld.gov.au/law/your-rights/consumer-rights-compl…

        When parking in a private car park that has appropriate signage, you enter a contract with the operator.
        Both you and the operator have rights and responsibilities under this contract. The operator also has responsibilities under the Australian Consumer Law.

        https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/cars/parking-payment-notices…

        When you enter a private car park (for example, at a shopping centre), you are agreeing to the terms and conditions displayed at the entrance of the car park and entering a contract.

        https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/buying-products-and-servi…

        • bobbified on 04/02/2020 - 23:53
          +1

          Applies to private car parks too

          Sorry, I had public vs non-public (private residential) carparks in mind when I wrote my earlier comment.

        • smartazz104 on 07/02/2020 - 07:54

          Applies to private car parks too

          That's rubbish then. You are not obligated to park in a public car park, but what choice do you have when you live in the bloody building?

      • juki on 06/02/2020 - 20:44
        +1

        if the pipe had fallen on his kids head would it also be through his insurance, i dont know enough about aus law but overseas it would be the person responsible for the maintenance of the pipes insurance that would pay for the repairs. Its very easy for the real estate to not want to do any work or pay for it.

    • chumlee on 04/02/2020 - 22:15
      +14

      Yeah no

      Can a cafe put up a sign stating "eat here at your own risk"

        • Milk tea on 05/02/2020 - 21:45
          +2

          No. That is why environmental health officers exist. To check restaurants and cafes to ensure that they are complying with food standards and is safe for the public

          • Zachary on 06/02/2020 - 11:14
            -2

            @Milk tea: Well, still good to have a disclaimer stating you take no responsibility for any consumed goods you receive from them….

            • deme on 06/02/2020 - 21:20
              +2

              @Zachary: The disclaimer has zero weight.

              Would you eat at a place that had a disclaimer like this?

              Why not put one on your car in lieu of insurance?

              • Zachary on 08/02/2020 - 17:47

                @deme:

                Would you eat at a place that had a disclaimer like this?

                Depends if I felt like taking a risk and or extremely hungry and there was nothing else to go on about…

                Why not put one on your car in lieu of insurance?

                I have one for thieves, does that count?

                • deme on 08/02/2020 - 19:40

                  @Zachary: What that thieves agree not to steal your car?

                  Your disclaimer about liability doesn't even work for thieves mate.

                  • Zachary on 09/02/2020 - 20:13

                    @deme: No, actually it's to warn them before hand to not waste time going through the car for anything of valuable to sell for a quick buck since there won't be any….unless they start dismantling the car itself, like taking the stock rims, seats and other internal stuff like the radio/tape system would probably be the only stuff I would try to steal from my own car if I was a thirsty thief….

                    And they won't be able to steal the whole car without the key(Which they'll have to take over my dead body unless they manage to pickpocket it off me professionally whilst walking pass casually nd me not noticing it….), smashing the windows to hot wire it (if my car even works that way) or a tow truck….

                    • deme on 10/02/2020 - 02:15

                      @Zachary: How is this related to a sign disclaiming liability?

                      • Zachary on 13/02/2020 - 10:19

                        @deme: You asked didn't you…? Besides, it's related because it's a disclaimer regardless of what nature or purpose it is for….

                        • deme on 13/02/2020 - 14:59

                          @Zachary: I asked about disclaiming liability.

                          • Zachary on 15/02/2020 - 12:37

                            @deme: Then ask Transperth and other car parking places why they have signs disclaiming liability and absolving themselves from it…. Why do they have it, hmmm?

            • ruddiger7 on 07/02/2020 - 09:15

              @Zachary: That's basically admitting negligence if something happens. Would advise against this.

              • Zachary on 08/02/2020 - 17:43

                @ruddiger7: Other people have disclaimers stating something similar for other reasons, why is this one negligence?

    • deme on 04/02/2020 - 22:43
      +23

      By reading this comment you agree to pay me $1000000000

      • datafellows on 04/02/2020 - 22:52
        +7

        Oh no!

      • Bob Svargis on 05/02/2020 - 07:10
        +2

        Caught me out! Do you take PayPal?

      • curious101 on 05/02/2020 - 17:07
        +2

        I am too smart, I didn't read it :P

        • raging on 06/02/2020 - 07:38
          +9

          Username DOES NOT check out!

      • Ash SA on 06/02/2020 - 20:41
        +2

        I read this in clint eastwood's voice. so short answer is no.

    • dizzle on 05/02/2020 - 00:41
      +10

      That protects them against things such as other drivers speeding through the car park or a third party affects the property resulting in damage.

      It does not protect them from maintenance neglect, or an agent doing work on their behalf (ie plumber performing maintenance repairs the pipe incorrectly and it falls on the car).

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 02:39
      +4

      They might like that, but they're only really covering them for things that are not their fault, if their negligence in maintenance causes the issue I don't think their T&C's will hold any legal weight.

      If another party caused the damage then your options are only to find that party and send them a letter of demand, repair it yourself or use your insurance.

  • AdosHouse on 04/02/2020 - 21:58
    +23

    It was an accident, therefore we aren't liable. LOL. Glad the agent didn't maliciously go out there and personally push the pipe onto your car.

    OP let me give you a bit of a personal experience story, it might help. Years ago at my old work, working one night shift and a big arse storm hit, and in that one of the carpark metal light posts fell over and landed on my car roof, stayed attached by the power cables which stopped it flipping over my car and taking more out. (one of these style lights, https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ijed.c…)

    Anyway I took lots of pictures of the light post that stowed that at the ground level, the metal was fully rusted through. This light was coming down eventually.

    I claimed it on my insurance, but my insurance said that the companies insurance was claiming act-of-god because it happened during a storm, and that I had to pay my excess and my insurance would fight it.

    Eventually my insurance won and I got my excess back. My insurance proved that the lightpost was rusted through, and not safe.

    OP my advice to you, is claim on your insurance, get your car fixed and let them worry about getting the money back from the estate's insurance.

    • dizzle on 05/02/2020 - 00:36
      +2

      Good points. And that brings up the difference between accident and neglect. If you slip on a spilled liquid and injure yourself, it's not normally the fault of the property owner. UNLESS the owner knew about the issue and failed to fix it, or if they knew about the cause of the issue and failed to fix it.

      Generally I would suggest a rusted pipe would signify neglect and therefore fault on their behalf. They will likely take the line of not being aware of the issue and therefore it being an accident. If there is any way for you to show that they knew about the rusted pipe (or other neglected areas have been reported but not fixed) such as reports/complaints/meeting notes etc, it can make it easier for you.

      But as they said above, best to claim it on your insurance and let them sort that out. You may have to pay the excess up front, but if proven it was their fault you get that back.

      • 69 dollar dealz on 05/02/2020 - 07:30
        +4

        or if they took failed to regularly inspect for spilled liquids. see the Woolies slip and fall cases.

    • jimdotpud on 06/02/2020 - 10:44
      +1

      This ^^^^^^.
      This is what your insurance company is for. pay the excess now.. you'll get it back later. Woolworths insurance is a far bigger company than your apartment buildings owner's corp. Let them do the chasing, just provide them as much info/pics as you can.

  • bobbified on 04/02/2020 - 21:59
    +25

    This might help:

    (https://www.flat-chat.com.au/topic/damage-to-parked-vehicle-…)

    Under s.62 of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, the owners corporation has a duty to maintain and repair property.

    If the owners corporation has failed to maintain and repair common property and this has resulted in damage to personal property, the owners corporation is responsible for the damage and a claim can be made against the owners corporation.

    Under s83 (1) of the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996, “the owners corporation of a strata scheme for the whole of a building must insure the building and keep the building insured under a damage policy with an approved insurer”.

    Therefore, the car parking area, being part of the building, ought be be insured.

    • jjjaar on 05/02/2020 - 17:14

      Not sure how it works in this instance, genuinely curious if anyone knows… but often car spaces themselves are on the private title of the unit. The structure around them gets messy and varies from situation to situation, regarding private/owners Corp ownership.

      Luckily, however, in this case, the whole thing is owned by one person so the insurances they have would likely cover it all.

      • bobbified on 05/02/2020 - 17:19
        -3

        The parking spaces are private, but everything else comes under "common property" which is no different to the hallway leading to the apartments.

        Common property is managed by the Owners Corporation.

        • jjjaar on 05/02/2020 - 17:22

          Yes, that usually is the case, and unfortunately I haven’t been able to view the photo so I can’t see, but there are some instances where there are separate carports for each unit/apartment. I have friends that live in these circumstances and actually are responsible for the carport, as it is wholly within their property.

          But appears not for this circumstance.

        • techlead on 06/02/2020 - 09:09
          -1

          All the walls and pipes on them are common property, even the ground. When you are own an apartment, all you own is the air within the walls, the walls and the structure itself is common property.

        • jimdotpud on 06/02/2020 - 10:47

          the whole building owned by a single owner and managed by one real estate agent/strata

          either way.. same person according to OP

  • chumlee on 04/02/2020 - 22:12
    +11

    Strata is liable.

    Send a letter of demand but then also expect to be evicted at some stage

  • pegaxs on 04/02/2020 - 22:39
    -1

    Christ, does it need to be said?

    “What did your insurer say when you asked them?”

    Why is this not the default course of action before even posting here?

    • bobbified on 04/02/2020 - 22:43
      +5

      “What did your insurer say when you asked them?”
      Why is this not the default course of action before even posting here?

      What insurance? :p

      • pegaxs on 04/02/2020 - 22:47
        +6

        *sigh* valid point… that’s what it’s usually alluding to.

    • YB on 04/02/2020 - 22:47
      +2

      I have set an excess amount of my insurance is $2000 to reduce insurance premium as I am confident for my driving. I am hesitant to go to insurance just in case I will have to pay an excess.
      I am with Woolworth car insurance. They asked me to check with building management first, if they are taking liability then I don't need to lodge a claim with my insurance.
      Thanks

      • pegaxs on 04/02/2020 - 22:54
        +2

        Ps: big props for buying a Camry… you really have been reading OzBargain… :D

      • elgrande on 04/02/2020 - 23:15
        +1

        Confident for my driving

        Te hee hee

      • Ughhh on 05/02/2020 - 00:16

        I am hesitant to go to insurance just in case I will have to pay an excess.

        You're insurance would inform you if you need to pay excess before commencing repairs.

      • dizzle on 05/02/2020 - 00:45
        +2

        I have heard of this sort of thing on Woolworths/coles insurance. They are budget for a reason and want you to do the work. A family member paid the excess to get them to do the work, but still had to fight for it because they cut corners and said she was at fault. After the family stepped in and fought the decision they ended up getting the excess back

        • JimmyF on 05/02/2020 - 09:30
          +2

          They are budget for a reason

          You can't have budget pricing with premium service. Something has to 'give' to get the price down.

          I myself don't deal with budget insurance companies for this reason. They make you work harder, reject more claims and look for reasons not to pay.

        • tik tok on 06/02/2020 - 13:37

          My experience is otherwise. Woolies car insurance was an absolute breeze and very helpful. Even let me stack on the rental car cover after my accident just so I could get a rental car while my car was being fixed.

      • Zonty on 06/02/2020 - 01:11
        +1

        It's should be cover under public liability insurance under building insurance of owner. Ask agent to get you building manager detail and get email detail send him picture and incident details to claim under public liability insurance if they do not support claim then always you can involve consumers affair,
        All has to be in written so always use email for communication.
        Yes it's true you need to show its was happen because of lack of care.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 06/02/2020 - 11:32
          +2

          @Zonty

          At last some sensible advice.

          This is 100% a public liability issue, and the body corporate has insurance for exactly this kind of incident.

          The 'lack of care' is not an issue. If something falls off a building and damages someone else's property the building owner is responsible. Whether they 'cared' for it, loved it, or despised it.

          In the OP's situation, the building agent/manager is just trying to avoid doing any work. (Plus, they likely have an excess on their own insurance, and may worry about their premiums increasing.)

          Request remedy in writing. Be detailed, explicit, include dates, times, photos, etc. The remedy should be the total incurred cost to you to restore your vehicle to previous condition. This may include towing costs (if incurred), taxi and/or transport costs to you.

          If you get a negative (or no) response, take it to your state's small claims (or equivalent) tribunal. You are 99% certain to win. BUT…. it will take time, and hassle and effort. Such is life.

  • JimmyF on 04/02/2020 - 22:45

    What option do I have?

    As the agent said

    contact your car insurer

    They will chase up who is liability, if it is not you.

    rusted downpipe falls on my car

    BTW you sure someone hasn't hit that downpipe and knocked it off?

    • YB on 04/02/2020 - 22:49

      I am not not sure as I dont have an evidance, thanks

      • JimmyF on 04/02/2020 - 22:56
        +1

        I only ask as after zooming in on the picture, I'm not seeing any real rust in that picture that would cause it fall down on its own.

        Plus it had 3 brackets holding it to the wall, based on the painting marks on the down pipe and lastly, the top piece has a 'twist' in it.

        All this looks like it was knocked off by a bad driver more than poor maintenance.

        • AdosHouse on 05/02/2020 - 00:20
          +1

          I'd say you are on to it here. Looks like the pipe snapped in two where there was a strap. So 4 straps holding it on the wall. Plus look at the bottom of the straight section, looks like it is crumpled.

          Someone must have been hugging the wall to drive into it. Or someone just put their shoe into it.

  • zuuutoootuuu on 04/02/2020 - 23:25
    -1

    that isn't 2k work of damage, $500 should be able to fix it privately.

    • Dbargain4me on 05/02/2020 - 07:22
      +1

      500 doesn't cover much as op said there is a scratch on the door why shouldn't he have his car repaired properly without being able to tell that it ever happened?

      • Seraphin7 on 06/02/2020 - 10:01
        -1

        Fixing privately doesn't mean it won't be fixed properly.

        • Dbargain4me on 06/02/2020 - 11:17

          No but for 500 won't be fixing it properly

          • Seraphin7 on 06/02/2020 - 14:07

            @Dbargain4me: I've no idea what something does or doesn't cost to fix. That wasn't part of what I was commenting on.

            The point simply is that a private job will be of no different standard to an insurance job. I had a not dissimilar issue (some (profanity) popped the rear quarter window to break in looking for coins) a few years back and just got it dealt with outside of insurance … from memory the cost of the job was basically equal to the excess. Old mate sorted it out in a few days and no trouble since.

  • Dbargain4me on 05/02/2020 - 07:20
    +2

    So what if it hit someone they are not liable? Bullcrap they need to pay for this that's your spot

  • Zeusy on 05/02/2020 - 07:27
    +1

    Public liability claim under the buildings strata insurance. Find out who
    the insurer is and lodge a claim.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 07:27

    I had a light fitting fall on my car in my designated underground carpark, because the light was 3m above my car and not reported as loose the strata refused liability as there was no way they could attempt a fix before the accident. Unless you or others have complained to strata to have it fixed and have evidence, it will get ruled an accident as they had no forewarning to fix it. If you have proof that 1/2/8 residents raised concern of a rusty downpipe and possible injury, and they chose not to fix it or repaired it poorly, it would be the strata insurance you claim against.

    • JimmyF on 05/02/2020 - 09:26

      and not reported as loose the strata refused liability as there was no way they could attempt a fix before the accident

      This is correct, their liability is greatly reduced if its hasn't been reported.

      Councils are the same, footpath that has a tripping hazard but hasn't been reported? They have very little liability. But once its reported, they are onto it like no tomorrow, as their liability goes through the roof once its been reported and they fail to fix it.

      • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 12:40

        i was a bit angry at the time cause the strata electrician was through 2 weeks before replacing all the fluro tubes. had to have left something loose as it hadnt fallen in 13 years, but 2 weeks after replacement it damages my car.

        • JimmyF on 05/02/2020 - 14:39

          Well yes that kinda changes things if it was only just 'replaced' and fell down, I would have went them a bit harder if that was the case.

          If it was hanging from the roof for 13 years and fell down, then crap happens, but if it was replaced and falls down 2 weeks later, questions should be asked indeed!

          • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 16:21

            @JimmyF: my insurance didnt even want to chase the strata about it, told them they are denying liability and they went "ok, so its your problem, how are you paying the excess". I submitted an issue with the ombudsman and even they came back with "too bad so sad".

            • JimmyF on 05/02/2020 - 17:53

              @[Deactivated]: Yeah thats pretty crap…… Did you try the strata directly? Bit harder to say no when you're standing in front of them.

              • [Deactivated] on 06/02/2020 - 10:18

                @JimmyF: That would just result in a special levy to pay for repairs, of which i would contribute to being an owner. Picked the best of the poisons on offer and just dealt/deal with the scratched roof and dent/s.

  • HeWhoKnows on 05/02/2020 - 07:57
    -6

    OP must prove negligence on behalf of the owner.

    In this case that the owner was aware that the downpipe and supporting brackets were loose and rusting and likely to collapse.

    If OP or any other tenant had noticed this and asked agent to have it repaired then yes, OP has a case.

    OR POSSIBLY
    That the property is not maintained despite requests from the tenants to carry out various checks and repairs

    If not then its a case of bad luck.

  • fishing on 05/02/2020 - 08:08

    If a kid was walking past and was hit, would that kid be liable? I don't think so. Absolutely strata insurance for public liability. They may have a problem due to repairs and maintenance but that wouldn't be the kids problem

    Same logic should apply to a car which has a (paid) right to be there

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2020 - 12:05
    +3

    So many experts in this forum - all with different opinions.

  • Ginag on 05/02/2020 - 12:11
    +1

    The owner or owners of the building are liable.
    They should have public liability insurance, so their insurer should pay. If not, they are personally liable for the damage. This is the legal position. There should be a sign on the building, fence or letterbox stating who the body corporate is. I would start with them to find out this body corporates insurer and claim on their insurance policy. If there isn't any, I would find out from the real estate agent. If all to hard, call up your insurer and explain the situation to see if they can help.

  • OzHunterNSW on 05/02/2020 - 13:30
    -3

    THE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE CORPORATE BODY FAILING TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY.

    IT COULD HAVE FELL ON A BABY!

    • JimmyF on 05/02/2020 - 14:40
      -1

      and what if it didn't fall down on its own but was say knocked? Then who?

  • Nobby47 on 05/02/2020 - 13:38

    But babies shouldn’t be left unattended in a car park.

    • JimmyF on 05/02/2020 - 14:40
      +3

      Pfft this isn't a casino ;)

      • AdosHouse on 05/02/2020 - 21:33

        Or any place with pokies.

  • zooter on 05/02/2020 - 16:59

    Hey Op do you live in my apartment? Looks very similar. HIIIIII

  • gazzathegreat on 05/02/2020 - 19:08
    +1

    Definitely a strata / body corporate problem. Their downpipe fell down, it was not a accident caused by you. Body corporate will have to claim on their insurance to fix the fallen downpipe and any damage it caused, to property or a person as Ozhunternsw said. Contact the free public lawyers in your state to see where to go to next. If you are in a motoring organisation like NRMA etc, they have lawyer services for members.You might need to wave a big stick at strata. DO NOT forgo your $2,000 excess, you are in the right here.

  • His_Holiness on 05/02/2020 - 19:47

    You don't have to go through your insurance company. You can file your own claim in NSW's small claims court.

  • 82norm on 05/02/2020 - 20:15
    +1

    Lodge a residential tenancy application through NCAT seeking damages/compensation from the real estate agent/landlord. Application for submission $50.00. Double check on the NCAT website. You shouldn’t have to pay for this.

  • Dabbler68 on 05/02/2020 - 21:44
    +1

    If it fell and hurt a person (including baby), there would be no question about it. It would be negligence due to faulty maintenance. For that, the Body Corporate insurance policy will probably reject their claim. Whatever the case, make a claim on the Body Corporate.

  • justwii on 05/02/2020 - 22:39

    You need to prove its caused by failing to maintain properly in order to blame strata or lot owner, e.g. find evidence there is a rusty screw or bracket. Otherwise it is no one's fault, pure accident.

    • dlakers3peat on 05/02/2020 - 22:58

      How is it an accident? If the building would crumble and crush his car would this also be an accident?

      It's very obvious the strata is responsible for the damage to your car.

      Don't let them bully you into thinking otherwise.

      • justwii on 06/02/2020 - 01:15
        -1

        I didn't say it IS an accident, I said OP needs to find evidences to prove it is someone's fault. Lack of maintenance is just one possible cause, but you need to prove it by finding rusty parts or weak supporting brackets; similarly, someone intentionally unscrewed it is another possible cause, then again you need to prove it e.g. car cam footage. After all, without any evidences, you can't not blame anyone, call it an accident or bad luck or act of god however you want.

  • nodeahs on 05/02/2020 - 23:04

    Hi OP, couldn't send you PM but wanted to let you know your full name is visible in the Dropbox link. Thought you might like to know.

    • YB on 06/02/2020 - 14:03
      +1

      Thanks, I have removed it

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join