Thanks, i have already sent numerous letters to the management company. Here are copies of my letters and my responses... Let me know what i can do from here.
************************* ************************* ************
Dear Tony/Alex, Please find attached a copy of the written estimate for the total cost of repair to the above mentioned vehicle following damages caused by security gates at The Royal. The total estimated cost is £744.90 The damage occurred on Friday 23 June 2006 at approximately 0725. Full details of the incident were given over the telephone to Tony at 1020 who confirmed that engineers were coming to look at the gates early next week as there have been repeated problems with them over several weeks and the gates were already faulty before the incident occurred. I am taking this incident very seriously as my car needs major repair work and it was a very traumatic experience. My major concern is for the health and safety of both myself and the other residents of The Royal and I can’t help but feel that there is a question of liability here that needs to be addressed. Please can you let me know the outcome of this situation by Friday 30 June 2006. I hope we can reach an outcome of which we are all agreed without having to involve third parties however should my request for a decision not be met by Friday 30 June 2006 I shall be forced to consider starting legal proceedings. If you need to look my vehicle I have photographic images for you to look at and will be able to show you the damage myself on Tuesday 27 June 2006 between the hours of 1130 and 1230. For your information I will be parking my car in the visitor’s car park with immediate effect. Yours sincerely, R HENDERSON
************************* ************************* **************
I received this back...
************************* ************************* **************
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Ross,
We refer to your recent complaint and can now advise you of our following findings -
- Our contract engineers for the electronic gates, have fully tested the opening mechanism and electronic controls and found that they are in working order.
- From enquiries we have made, your apartment has only onw gate control fob issued and this is in the possession of Caroline Sceats.
- Your vehichle was found on 26.6.2006 in a car park space owned by another apartment. You do not have authority to park in that space. Under the circumstances, your vehicle was parked on all previous occasions without authourity.
- As you were not in possession of a fob to the gate controls, you could not open the gates to exit or enter the car park.
- As a result of the collision by your vehichle, the second gate mechanism has been damaged for which we shall require payment from you or your insurers.
As we now understand, you were parked without authority within the car park of The Royal and as such, the Royal Salford Management Company Ltd does not accept any form of liability for the damage to your vehicle.
Regards
Tony Bell - Director.
************************* ************************* ***********
I immediately responded with this....
************************* ************************* ***********
Dear Tony, I refer to your letter dated 29.6.2006 and would now like to address some of the points you have raised. Firstly, I must make it clear how disgusted I was to receive such an ill-considered and frankly intimidating letter from you. I immediately telephoned you at 1210 to discuss the circumstantial nature of the points you raised and asked you to call me back as soon as you picked up the message. You made no attempt to contact me, hence the reason for this facsimile. To address your first point, the gates were quite clearly faulty and had been for several days prior to the incident. You yourself admitted this during our telephone conversation following the incident at 1020 on 23 June 2006. I respectfully request to see a copy of the report made by the contract engineers for the gates with a detailed report of their findings. I would also like a copy of the gate specification to show to my solicitor if needs be. The second point you made regarding the control fob is also incorrect. The fob is shared between Caroline Sceats and myself. Therefore, as we both own vehicles, we take it in turns to park in the secure underground car park and rotate the allocation of who is in possession of the fob. This agreement between Caroline and I has been confirmed to the Royal Salford Management Company by Caroline herself, in a telephone conversation with Alex on 29 June 2006 at 1407. On the date of the incident I was in possession of the fob, not Caroline. Prior to the incident my vehicle was parked in the parking space allocated to our apartment. Your third point is entirely irrelevant to this investigation. I would like to remind you that the date the incident occurred was 23 June 2006, therefore where my car was parked on 26 June 2006 is wholly unrelated to the incident. Your assumption that my car had been “parked on all previous occasions without authority” is not only incorrect but also circumstantial and highlights the weakness of your argument. I am in no way responsible for the incident, nor the upkeep of the gates. I pay a management charge which is included in my rent for the general maintenance of the building, and therefore, as the gates were already faulty, it is the responsibility of The Royal Salford Management Company Limited to pay for their repair costs. I also hold The Royal Salford Management Company Limited wholly and entirely responsible for causing the severe damage to my vehicle and hold the company liable for repair costs. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that someone could have been seriously injured in the accident and it is a major breach of health and safety standards. As I said in my previous correspondence with you on 23 June 2006, my primary concern is for the health and safety of myself and other residents of The Royal and I am appalled and sickened at the total lack of support or help I have received from The Royal Salford Management Company as a result of the incident. As I now understand, your main points addressed to me in the letter are entirely circumstantial, false and ill-considered. I am sickened that The Royal Salford Management Company Limited did not even have the decency to offer me a written apology for the damage caused to myself and my vehicle. There is very little mention of the actual problem and malfunction of the gates and that surely is critical to this investigation? I am fully within my rights to request a full written copy of the contract engineers’ findings and would like to receive this, along with a full gate specification, by Wednesday 5 July 2006. I also respectfully request you to re-assess your findings and original judgement in terms of accepting your liability. In the unfortunate event that we get no further forward I shall be forced to hand this matter over to my solicitor, which is an avenue I hoped we wouldn’t need to explore. I respectfully request that all future conversation between The Royal Salford Management Company and myself are via written correspondence only. Yours sincerely, ROSS HENDERSON
************************* ************************* ************
I then received this...
************************* ************************* ***********
Dear Ross,
I am in receipt of your letter dated 29.6.2006.
I enclose a copy of our engineers report which clearly states that
if the gate was open, it would not close while either pedestrians or vehicles were in movement through the archway.
As you will not from the report, and their assessment of the type of damage to the edge of the gate, they suspect that the gate was in the closed position and had not been opened by uou.
The gates were previously damaged by a tenant who forced it open as they were not in possession of a fob. The control mechanism (photocells), were not attached to the gate and were found to be in working order.
When the gates were in operation the opening speed is very slow, so much so that any vehicle could have reversed away from them with a degree of safety.
In general, the gates have operated as they should and apart from damage caused, have never caused any problem.
With regard to your comment of Caroline Sceats and yourself sharing the same space and fob is not acceptable. You are allowed one vehicle and one vehicle
only.
The Royal Salford Management Company Ltd, does not accept responsibility for damage, theft of loss of any vehicle parked at The Royal. The reason for this is obvious and applies to all car parks (N.C.P etc)
The report from our gate company clearly indicates that if the gates were open, then they would not close whilst in the open position.
Your account of the incident does not 'add-up'. There is no argument that there is damage to your car, but that damage could not have been caused by a gate closing on you while you were driving through if you first opened them.
We do not accept liability. We suggest you contact your insureres and upon request we will forward our findings to them.
Regards,
Tony Bell- Director.
REPORT FOLLOWING CALL OUT TO AUTOMATED GATES. Date: 28th June 2006 Call-out Date: 27th June 2006 Findings;
Upon inspection of the gates it was found that the opposite gate had been damaged.
The gates had allegedly closed whilst a vehicle was passing through causing some damage to the vehicle.
When we arrived on site it was found that both sets of safety photocells were fully operational. These are fitted as a safety precaution to prevent the gates from closing if a pedastrian/vehicle crosses the beams of the photocells.
I have attached a photograph which shows this.
As you can see thr gap between each set of photocells is not great enough for a vehicle to pass through without breaking at least one set.
The damage that was found exactly matches that found on the 1st call out; in that the bracket that attaches the hydraulic arm to the gate was found to be bent.
The only explanation for the damage to the second gate is that a car has possibly tried to pass through the gates whilst the first gate was not in operation and so in the closed position.
This was previously witnessed by yourself and our engineer, whilst on site.
A new bracket will need to be fitted to the second gate for this to be fully functioning;
as follows -
Costs incurred £300.00 + vat
(Includes original call out charge)
Continued....
************************* ************************* ************
On the next page was a very blurry black and white image of the gates with the photocells circled for my attention.
There was no firther report from continued on the next page even though it said "continued" at the bottom.
The gates were inspected 4 days after the incident by a company called Georgian Gates who are based in Bury. These are not independent engineers and work for The Royal Salford Management Company.
I have not yet responded to this letter as i am now desperately trying to weigh up my options but yesterday i received an invoice from The Royal Salford Management Company Limited for the sum of £352.50.
I have not answered this either but do NOT intend to pay.
Where can i go from here?
Damage Caused To My Car By Automatic Gates At My Apartment Building. Please Help! 
