Advise needed - damage to car in condo

[Quickfusion]

Hi All,

 

Like to check with you guys.

Should you park your car in a condo car park and a light drops from the ceiling and damages the car, the condo management should be responsible and compensate for damages right?

 

Initially the condo management said they would compensate and then proceeded to make claim with their insurer.

But here is the twist, insurer contacted me saying that the condo management has done their due diligence to do regular checks to make sure the light fittings are all in good condition and so the condo management nor the insurance company is not liable.

 

This makes totally no sense to me. Can anyone advise on this please?

 

Thanks!

[Thaiyotakamli]

Insurance company ******* don't want to pay

 

Consult with management see what they can offer. Otherwise maybe can go after the contractor who install the lighting

[inlinesix]

Just bring everything to small claims.  If small claims tribunal says management responsible, who cares who pay?

[macrosszero]

Consult your own insurance for advice.

 

If the sum to repair the roof is smaller than your excess, you might find it worthwhile to fight it yourself.

 

If the sum is larger than your excess and is not the same insurance company/grop, claim against your own insurer and let your insurer tackle their insurer.

 

Insurance companies know how to talk to each other. 

[Enye]

every carpark always have a signboard disclaiming all management responsibility for any damage to any cars parked there

[serenade]

Condo car park is park at own risk. Think of it as same as parking in your own porch, as condo owner owns part of car-park. If park at own porch, and a light falls on car you will pay to repair both, right? Only difference is that condo MCST will pay to rectify light from common funds as is common property. 

 

If damage to car is superficial, pay your own repairs out of pocket. Go small claims court, you have to spend time preparing own case,  and attend hearing during office hours.

[Ake109]

Just bring everything to small claims.  If small claims tribunal says management responsible, who cares who pay?

 

Agree, SCT is very effective when it comes to these sub 10k (unless you driving an Agera and your carbon fibre rood costs 50k to fix) claims.

 

You submit your written docs, get a date, make sure you turn up and explain your case politely to the person (are they magistrates?) you get your written judgement on the spot. If the condo mgmt. refuse to turn up, most likely your win 100%.

[Ingenius]

If ts car gets stolen while parked in the condo, is the management responsible ?

[Quickfusion]

Just bring everything to small claims. If small claims tribunal says management responsible, who cares who pay?

Thanks, I think may have to go down this route as both management and insurer are basically telling me they ain't gonna be responsible and all I can do is suck my thumb...

[Quickfusion]

Consult your own insurance for advice.

 

If the sum to repair the roof is smaller than your excess, you might find it worthwhile to fight it yourself.

 

If the sum is larger than your excess and is not the same insurance company/grop, claim against your own insurer and let your insurer tackle their insurer.

 

Insurance companies know how to talk to each other.

I'll admit that it's just 2 small paint scratches that can be ignored actually. But what pisses me off is that initially management promise this and that then finally insurer just give weird reason that management did their regular checks hence no compensation. This makes no sense to me.

It is because management did their regular checks, that's why in the unforeseen situation whereby the light does drop then that is where the insurer compensates right?

If the insurance say they won't compensate because management didn't do due diligence to regularly check then at least I can accept this reason from insurer.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Either that or insurer say lights is not covered under the policy... This I also can accept.

This isn't just about lighting drop on car and car damage. What happens if someone was injured...

Are they gonna say the same thing and reject compensation?

every carpark always have a signboard disclaiming all management responsibility for any damage to any cars parked there

Ok fine, does that mean any damage that isn't caused by their management responsibility?

I mean if the car was vandalised by another person, ok of course management should not be responsible.

But if fixtures like lighting or maybe ventilation or air-con system fell on your car. How?

Condo car park is park at own risk. Think of it as same as parking in your own porch, as condo owner owns part of car-park. If park at own porch, and a light falls on car you will pay to repair both, right? Only difference is that condo MCST will pay to rectify light from common funds as is common property.

 

If damage to car is superficial, pay your own repairs out of pocket. Go small claims court, you have to spend time preparing own case, and attend hearing during office hours.

Well, I agree with you. But condo owners pay maintenance fees to management right. Hence regular checks and preventive maintenance should be done. And should something happen then the people in charge if the premises should be responsible no?

My real concern is safety. Safety of people walking through the area.

Agree, SCT is very effective when it comes to these sub 10k (unless you driving an Agera and your carbon fibre rood costs 50k to fix) claims.

 

You submit your written docs, get a date, make sure you turn up and explain your case politely to the person (are they magistrates?) you get your written judgement on the spot. If the condo mgmt. refuse to turn up, most likely your win 100%.

Thanks!

If ts car gets stolen while parked in the condo, is the management responsible ?

I won't say management is responsible. But if there is security available then I'll question management on what security is doing and if there is cctv footage things like that.

 

As I said earlier, vandalism and stolen I would question security but not put blame in management.

But damage caused by fixtures managed and maintained by management I would say they are responsible.

Or am I wrong to think this way?

[Quickfusion]

Condo car park is park at own risk. Think of it as same as parking in your own porch, as condo owner owns part of car-park. If park at own porch, and a light falls on car you will pay to repair both, right? Only difference is that condo MCST will pay to rectify light from common funds as is common property.

 

If damage to car is superficial, pay your own repairs out of pocket. Go small claims court, you have to spend time preparing own case, and attend hearing during office hours.

To add on to this, like I said. Maintenance fee are paid to management to maintain and prevent such things from happening. It only makes sense for them to be responsible no?

 

Living in landed property, you don't pay maintenance fees but it's the owners responsibility to maintain and prevent such things from happening from his own pocket right?

Or if I stay in landed property and I hire a maintenance company to check and maintain everything monthly. Should something happen surely they gotta be responsible no?

 

Another example, you go to a shopping mall carpark, upon entering / exiting the barrier comes down early and hits your car causing a big dent and paintwork gone. How?

[Sunny]

Hi All,

 

Like to check with you guys.

Should you park your car in a condo car park and a light drops from the ceiling and damages the car, the condo management should be responsible and compensate for damages right?

 

Initially the condo management said they would compensate and then proceeded to make claim with their insurer.

But here is the twist, insurer contacted me saying that the condo management has done their due diligence to do regular checks to make sure the light fittings are all in good condition and so the condo management nor the insurance company is not liable.

 

This makes totally no sense to me. Can anyone advise on this please?

 

Thanks!

 

 

The insurer person who contacted u must had worked for NParks before

Last year my colleague's car got hit by fallen tree branch. That was the same reason given...

Done their regular pruning n checks bla bla..........not liable"

My colleague LL such thumb settled own repairs

[Quickfusion]

The insurer person who contacted u must had worked for NParks before

Last year my colleague's car got hit by fallen tree branch. That was the same reason given...

Done their regular pruning n checks bla bla..........not liable"

My colleague LL such thumb settled own repairs

Yes! Exactly, replied very arrogantly somemore... It's like they got all bases covered and it's claim proof... Best business, sell the insurance but can't claim no matter what the situation is. OMG!

[Neutrino]

This is normal insurance.

 

You pay the premium and they deny liability.

[Quickfusion]

This is normal insurance.

 

You pay the premium and they deny liability.

Sorry for my lack of insurance experience and knowledge but I hope you are not serious.

[Tedlhw]

Bro, similar thing happen to me at HDB carpark...

Barrier fell on my car... badly dented.

I sent complaint to

 

1) HDB

2) Carpark operator/ contractor

3) Straits Times Forum.

 

And told them i got video footage and failure to hear from them in 1 week, will put footage online and seek legal advice.

3 days problem settled.

 

 

[Kangadrool]

They can put whatever clause/disclaimers they love so much, but you still have the rights to sue for negligence. 

 

Otherwise, lawyers how to tan jiak and all people can also put clauses and disclaimers to absolve any and all liabilities.

 

Just like you go hospital let doctor operate also must sign indemnity.... But, there are still so many law suits against doctors....

 

 

Edited July 31, 2016 by Kangadrool

[macrosszero]

I'll admit that it's just 2 small paint scratches that can be ignored actually. But what pisses me off is that initially management promise this and that then finally insurer just give weird reason that management did their regular checks hence no compensation. This makes no sense to me.

It is because management did their regular checks, that's why in the unforeseen situation whereby the light does drop then that is where the insurer compensates right?

If the insurance say they won't compensate because management didn't do due diligence to regularly check then at least I can accept this reason from insurer.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Either that or insurer say lights is not covered under the policy... This I also can accept.

This isn't just about lighting drop on car and car damage. What happens if someone was injured...

Are they gonna say the same thing and reject compensation?

Ok fine, does that mean any damage that isn't caused by their management responsibility?

I mean if the car was vandalised by another person, ok of course management should not be responsible.

But if fixtures like lighting or maybe ventilation or air-con system fell on your car. How?

Well, I agree with you. But condo owners pay maintenance fees to management right. Hence regular checks and preventive maintenance should be done. And should something happen then the people in charge if the premises should be responsible no?

My real concern is safety. Safety of people walking through the area.

Thanks!

I won't say management is responsible. But if there is security available then I'll question management on what security is doing and if there is cctv footage things like that.

 

As I said earlier, vandalism and stolen I would question security but not put blame in management.

But damage caused by fixtures managed and maintained by management I would say they are responsible.

Or am I wrong to think this way?

 

Sorry but I have to call BS on some of the things you say - highlighted in red.

 

What you want is to be compensated for wrongful damage to your car, fact that you had parked for free in the condominium notwithstanding. Dragging in other possibilities/outcomes to serve your agenda doesn't look good at all. Don't make yourself out to be so noble and trying to keep things safe for everyone - I mean, would you give two hoots about the falling lightning fixture if your car hadn't been damaged?

 

Just tackle the situation based on the facts of the matter. Good luck.