Luton Fire.

[scotta]

Cant help but feel for the folk that owned the Evoque that started the fire. Some comments on twitter about liability. The majority of the claim could land on their insurance policy up to the maximum liability limit of around £20m. That's not a figure you want to be putting in an insurance quote form.

[Jobbo]

There's no way the Evoque owners are liable for the fire - unless they were negligent, which seems most unlikely (leaving a lit cigarette in the car?).

[mik]

@Jobbo rumours abound that they'd left a pack of these in the boot....

[scotta]

There's no way the Evoque owners are liable for the fire - unless they were negligent, which seems most unlikely (leaving a lit cigarette in the car?).

Fire seems to be coming from the front left of the engine bay. i don't think there will be negligence from the owners.

There is however precedence set here where they go after the initial vehicle for the majority of the claim.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/c ... 65235.html

[Swervin_Mervin]

There's no way the Evoque owners are liable for the fire - unless they were negligent, which seems most unlikely (leaving a lit cigarette in the car?).

There's a chap on PH that manages Edinborough airports assets incl car park and he said that when they had a car park fire the claim came off the car insurance of the vehicle that caught fire.

[Mito Man]

Looks like it was a Range Rover Sport that started it, it will no doubt further help with their insurance premiums.

[Jobbo]

That's Ireland so doesn't set any precedent for English courts, though their legal system is not dissimilar to ours.

Interesting and lengthy analysis by a QC here: https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/fire ... defendant/ - the conclusion is that it may be possible for there to be liability but it hadn't been tested in 2016 when that was produced. In view of the sums involved, it may be tested before the courts this time.

[tim]

The pro-Ev and anti-Ev tribes going at each other hammer and tongs on X about whether it was an EV that started it (seems not, pre 2018 Evoque apparently) is pretty hilarious.

Tinfoil hat sales must be through the roof.

[integrale_evo]

The 911 conspiracy theorists tell me a fuel fire can’t melt steel so I assume this was some sort of pre planned government experiment to demolish the carpark to encourage people not to use motor vehicles

[GG.]

The 911 conspiracy theorists

Are they the ones that say front engined cars are an invention of the communists?

[GG.]

Looks like it was a Range Rover Sport that started it, it will no doubt further help with their insurance premiums.

Oh joy! So now not only is my car a target to get stolen but it may explode and cause £20m worth of damage...

[dinny_g]

though their legal system is not dissimilar to ours.

Like a lot if Irish life - makes complete sense when you think about it.

Somewhere in Ireland in 1923 -

"Right lads, we need an entire legal system"

"Erm, if we just copy what's here, we can go to the pub"

"Marvelous idea"

Lot's of Harumping, hitting the tables and then, off to get langered!!!

[Jobbo]

Yeah, but it's diverged a bit in the last century

[Beany]

Looks like it was a Range Rover Sport that started it, it will no doubt further help with their insurance premiums.

Oh joy! So now not only is my car a target to get stolen but it may explode and cause £20m worth of damage...

Hopefully a few will go up in Bradford, it'd cause millions of pounds worth of improvements.

[duncs500]

My mate had his car parked in there and was delayed in the airport in Dublin not knowing whether his car (which he loves) was going up in smoke. Luckily his came out unscathed.

[jamcg]

I wonder if the car owner would be able to bounce it back to Luton airport over a car park design “not fit for purpose” as it didn’t include any fire suppressing equipment in the form of sprinklers, or any adequate fire containment systems. I think someone needs to be found culpable as that seems a massively stupid oversight, especially as the car park was only a matter of months old, and the location next to an airport should have been taken into account and the building overspecced.

Whilst fire suppression isn’t a legal requirement, containment and building structural soundness is, so here there definitely been some degree of non-compliant design, as the fire was able to spread between levels and cause structural failure, which is not supposed to be able to happen according to building regs

[scotta]

My mate had his car parked in there and was delayed in the airport in Dublin not knowing whether his car (which he loves) was going up in smoke. Luckily his came out unscathed.

Did he get it out the carpark? Comments on twitter that they weren't allowing people to retrieve undamaged cars.

[duncs500]

My mate had his car parked in there and was delayed in the airport in Dublin not knowing whether his car (which he loves) was going up in smoke. Luckily his came out unscathed.

Did he get it out the carpark? Comments on twitter that they weren't allowing people to retrieve undamaged cars.

Yeah, I assume so. He didn't mention that he wasn't able to get out.

[Simon]

I saw pics where they were making a new ramp out for those undamaged cars to get out.

[mik]