Collasped neighbours outbuilding damages old garden wall

fergus15

Home i've choosen the right forum...
Our Victorian house and our neighbours is seperated by a large garden wall, approx 25m in length with height ranging from 6 to 3 feet. The neighbours property has an old outbuilding attached to the wall (I assume that this was build at the same time as the wall as it is tied in brickwork and is the same age as the houses. It has an old outside toilet and looks to be of similar age and build). The roof of the neighbour's outbuilding has been overgrown with climbers and has establish a thick root system about 1 ft in depth.

In August this year when we were on holidy in France, the neighbours texted us to say that the roof of the outbuilding had collasped under the weight of the climbers and that the garden wall had been damaged. When we returned home we inspected the damage and observed that the wall was leaning dangerously into our garden, about three tonne ready to collaspe and as as we have two young children we were obviously concerned. The neighbours have since employed a builder/handyman to take down their semi collapsed outhouse (which they we planning to do anyway) and repair the damage to the wall. The first estimate was about a week and a half work. As the lower section of the wall (about 5m in length) has been a bit unsteady for a while, we indicated a willingness to get this done at the same time and share cost for this, estimated initially at about £100 each.

Well the work is now in its fourth week, the outhouse is down and 'all' the wall demolished. Apparently the builder instructed the neighbour that the whole wall needed to come down due to unsafe foundations. New footings have been dug and when i enquired as to the price of the work the neighbour said that the latest etimate is about £3000, which included £1000 for demolishing the outhouse.

I am now concerned that we will be facing a £1000 bill for damage to a shared wall that was caused by our neighbours lack of maintenace to their outhouse. The wall, apart from the lower end, was always been structuraly sound if just a bit old.

Whilst no specifics have been mentioned on payment I do not feel that I am not liabel for paying 50% or anything like that for damage which is essentially their fault. The wall may have been old but the damage was caused by their outbuilding.

My questions are:
- are we liable, as they have a building attached to the wall would this mean tthat the wall is 'their proprerty' and hence their responsibility
- what is my liability as the wall was damaged due to their neglect
- what would be a fair 'offer' as we have good relations and do not want to fall out.
- would making a contribution infer liability?

Incisor

fergus15 wrote: »

My questions are:
- are we liable, as they have a building attached to the wall would this mean tthat the wall is 'their proprerty' and hence their responsibility
- what is my liability as the wall was damaged due to their neglect
- what would be a fair 'offer' as we have good relations and do not want to fall out.
- would making a contribution infer liability?

A bit late for these questions, as you thought it might be about £100 and gave the neighbour the go ahead. Neighbour will be mightily peeved if you renege now, although they are equally at fault as you are for not sorting out liabilities and getting quotes first.

I would advise calling a halt now and resolving the questions, scope of work, costs and shares before going any further. But appreciate, this will add to your neighbours costs, so he won't be too happy.

Debt_Free_Chick

Agree - you should have a friendly discussion with your neighbour. Don't go into blame just now - just talk about costs and sharing them.

As a backup, check the deeds to your property to see if there is any mention of the cost of maintaining the wall (although this appears to be damage due to neglect - possibly - rather than routine maintenance).

fergus15

Thank you Incisor and Debt-free-chick. At the outset the neighbour openly stated that they would take responisbility for the damage caused by the collasped outbuilding. The offer of £100 was for a section of the wall which was unaffected by the collaspe but needed slight remedial attention. As such I have taken it that the neighbours actions indicates an admittance of liability as they acknowledge that the damage to the wall was due to negligence/neglect on their behalf and not ours. Where I am concerned is that the builder employed by them is stating that the work is more extensive than first thought, i.e. new footings. However the wall was never in a dangerous state until their roof collasped. I am not sure if (a) the builder is swinging the lead here (as neighbour had agreed a day -rate and (b) neighbours are trying to get us to share cost for the footings work that I dont believe were required or previously an issue, until the wall collasped.

Doozergirl

Plants wouldn't cause a healthy structure to collapse. It must have been dilapidated anyway. So it's maintenance to the wall and building that hasn't been maintained, compounded by the plants, not solely caused by them, iyswim.

Get your own builder or a surveyor in for a second opinion if you like.

And check the deeds for where the responsibility lies. My assumption would be that it's your neighbours' wall if an original structure on their land is attached to it. Might be wrong!

Incisor

Further thoughts. Call a halt, take a look at the party wall legislation and proceed according to that

Ian_Griffiths_Halifax

If he hasn't discussed any figures with you since the initial agreement of £100 then that's all I'd give him as that's what you agreed to pay. He's the one who has gone on and had more work done.

As mentioned already by the others, your deeds should state who is responsible for boundry walls. If it's the neighbour, then it could be that he's paying for this work and his insurance might have paid for it.

truman_sparks

In my opinion, the work seems to be going on as agreed. The only difference being the builder believes additional work on footings needs doing. This should be split really. The footings wont have been damaged by the building collapse and all things have a life span. IMO if the work genuinley needs doing its better to pay and have a good job done rather than a poor wall which may collapse after afew years.

Sometimes things just happen, and shared partitions usually are 50/50 on costs so in a way, if you get a new wall for half the price of the footings i would consider you to be well infront! Although i appreciate you probably werent expecting to need to spend cash in this way, general maintenance issues on your property just crop up usually, i would treat it just the same as a boiler failure or leak etc. It wont do any harm to your property value either.

In view of good relations with the neighbours i would have a word about the estimate of the footings and probably agree to pay half unless its obscene. I would want to however establish that the work does need doing first.

After all, the harmoney alone has a value, but i wouldent get up someones nose by getting "all legal" with plans etc just yet. That would be for when things are not resolved amicably, one mention of legals can turn things rather sour imo.

Just my opinion, its worth what ever you think it is!

TS