My car was damaged when leaving a parking space in my works car park.

I had pulled in forwards to a parking space, where the front of my car overhung the blocked paving.

No damaged occurred during the parking.

When reversing out to leave there was a huge crunch and the front of my car had caught on a piece of block paving sticking up and not flat to other blocks, ripping the side panel away from the front, at the corner of the car.

This happened when reversing and not parking as I had turned the wheel to angle out of the space when reversing and so the front of the car moved across a different part of the paving.

I had my car repaired through insurance and I am seeking reimbursement of the excess (£350) from the landlords of the property (not my employers) due to their negligence in keeping the car parking area in good repair.

Since notifying them of the damage and my request for a claim they have fixed the paving block and leveled it with the rest of the pavement.

I have pictures of all of this including the block before and after fixing.

The landlords are saying I parked at my own risk and they are not liable for any damage to cars, but there is no sign stating this anywhere in the car park.

They also say it is in the tenants handbook, which of course I have never seen.

If they continue to refuse I am thinking of taking it to the small claims court,

but I am looking for opinion on whether its worth it.

Does the Defective Premises Act 1972 come into this?

When they say they are not responsible for damage, they are correct, as far as accidents and malicious damage.

However they are fully responsible for damage caused to your car by them not providing a safe environment for you to park.

Tell them you'll see them in court.

Send a LBA letter

I disagree with sgtbush’s reasoning, even if I may end up not disagreeing with their conclusion ......

You were on the premises with permission, so the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 applies (rather than the 1984 act that is relevant to trespassers).

They can try to disclaim liability for damage to property (whereas they can’t disclaim liability for death or personal injury).

This is why I disagree with “they are fully responsible for damage caused to your car by them not providing a safe environment for you to park.” as in some circumstances they can disclaim liability for damage to property even if they haven’t provided a “safe environment”.

They’d have to show you knew (or, at least should have known) that they had disclaimed liability for damage to property.

If there weren’t signs up, and you weren’t in receipt of “the tenants handbook” you can’t willingly accept that risk, so their attempt to disclaim liability fails (as it would even if there were signs, for damages for death / personal injury).

So, you could claim for your non-recovered losses.

If there were signs (or “the reasonable person” would have known of the disclaimer to liability for property damage), then you wouldn’t have a claim for property damage even if they were negligent.

Thanks for responses.

I asked my facilities manager for a copy of the tenants handbook and it has the following language in the car park section

- "No Liability is accepted by the Landlord or Managing Agents for the loss or damage at anytime.".

However the handbook was dated October 2017 (received in Microsoft Word format)

I asked for an older copy in case it did not have this statement in.

I was then sent a copy dated September 2017

I clarified I wanted a copy from before the incident (June) and my facilities manager said the September copy was the first they have ever received so there is no way I could have been given notice of this, including the fact there are no signs.

Reply to the landlords saying that you'll proceed to claim, and will put them to strict proof that you know (or should have known) of their disclaimer of liability.

Take photo's of the car park (and its absence of signs).

With any luck they'll put signs up now (it's always good when they try to claim "they should have known!" and then you point out "If I, previously, should have known, why have you needed to put up new signs making it clearer?")

All the signs in the world don't absolve them of their liability, there is no such thing as ''No Liability''.

All the signs in the world don't absolve them of their liability, there is no such thing as ''No Liability''.

If this is true (& it isn’t!) why does the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 differentiate between:

a) personal injury (including death), and

b) damage to property?

If this is true (& it isn’t!) why does the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 differentiate between:

a) personal injury (including death), and

b) damage to property?

I have no idea, maybe you can tell us all?

I have no idea, maybe you can tell us all?

Because they can disclaim liability for damage to property!

They just can’t do so for personal injury (including death), [because the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 says so]

So, do you still believe:

All the signs in the world don't absolve them of their liability, there is no such thing as ''No Liability''.

They can say “no liability for damage to property”, or

“No liability except as prescribed at law”

Yes I do, thank you!

Now,

the OP's problem is that it appears he saw the hazard but decided to park there anyway.

This would mean that the landlords arguments about no liability disclaimers become irrelevant.

Same would apply if he hit a bollard.

For those with long memories perhaps you remember the matter of someone hitting a post entering a car park at a retail park when working as a delivery driver.

Not only did he not get any compensation for the damage to his vehicle he got done for driving without due care and lost his job if I recall correctly.

Thanks to those who gave advice. I sent a lba and they have agreed to settle and pay me the excess for my insurance, which is what I was claiming from them.

well done!

Awesome well done!