Notice reached the property manager; the snow contractor is unknown
What was checked
- Rule
- Snow and ice on private property: written notice within 60 days
- Instrument
- Occupiers' Liability Act, s. 6.1
- Enforcement
- reference, routes to review or escalation
- Verification status
- SECONDARY 60-day noticeCOUNSEL-CONFIRMS Who must be served
- Policy sources
What it rests on
| Input | Value | Basis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of the fall | 2026-01-22 | From a document | |
| Written notice served | 2026-03-10, on the property manager | From a document | |
| Snow removal contractor | Not on file | Missing | no document |
| Notice on the snow contractor | Not on file | Missing | no document |
Deterministic reasoning
- Owner from the land registry search: PL Holdings (fictional). NOTICE-WHO-01 is satisfied, so NOTICE-OLA-61 applies, not the City rules.
- Fall 2026-01-22; 60 calendar days closes the window 2026-03-23.
- Notice to the property manager 2026-03-10: inside the window.
- No document names the snow contractor. Who must be served is counsel-confirms.
The record's slots
- Confidence
- Missing
- Question
- Who held the snow removal contract, and was notice served on them? (lawyer)
- Reviewer
- empty
- Tier
- SHADOW v1.0 May raise a question. Cannot block, bind or stand as authority (SHADOW-01).
- Outcome
- empty while the file is open
- Coverage
- 7 documents on file, 1 not yet extracted: verdict degraded
Evidence packFalcon
A one-page PDF a carrier or the Law Society could read, and a JSON file a machine can check. Built only from this record and its sources.
This record is in shadow. The pack says so: it raises a question and cannot stand as authority.