Neighbours Fallen Tree

k212

Hi there,

Hopefully someone may have had experience with this - due to all the bad weather! That may be able to help me out!!??

Going back to the end of April during the really bad winds, a very tall and heavy tree came down from my neighbours garden, crushing a fence and a cracking a 7ft brick wall (top to bottom)
The neighbour was good enough to offer to sort the damage, however, at this point in time the wall has remained un-touched, and the fence has only just been replaced with a panel of a completely different colour, a fraction higher with screws half hanging out! It looks horrendous. We purchased a new house in December with all new fencing surrounding it, and this is just an eye sore!

I'm trying to research where we would stand on the internet but am getting now where, I assumed the gentleman would be repairing the damage through his insurance, but it seems he thought it best to make the repairs himself.

When you try and reason with the guy, he just shrugs us off and says it's in hand. However, I am concerned what will happen with the wall next!!

Does anyone have similar experience and know what the law is with regards to this?

Any Help would be greatly appreciated.
Many Thanks,

K

phill99

In this instance it is normal for you to put it through your own household insurers and they would then recover costs back from your neighbours insurers. As the costs will be recovered, it won't affect your premiums.

However, as it happened in April, you may not be able to claim as most insurers expect you to report the claim within 30 days.

You may wish to go down the legal route. Write to him giving him 14 days to make suitable repairs or you will commence an action against him in the County Court. If you have legal cover on your home insurance, they may be able to assist with this.

iamcornholio

A landowner is responsible for the trees on his land and damaged caused by them, or their roots

I would say it would be better for you to claim off him (via his insurance?) and then you wont have any claims recorded on your policy at all

You can get some quotes, and then give them to him with a letter, stating your claim. You can also ask for the details of his insurance. Give him a deadline

The problem you have with claiming of your insurance, is if they don't recover any or all their costs

gazza975526570

phill99 wrote: »

In this instance it is normal for you to put it through your own household insurers and they would then recover costs back from your neighbours insurers. As the costs will be recovered, it won't affect your premiums.

However, as it happened in April, you may not be able to claim as most insurers expect you to report the claim within 30 days.

You may wish to go down the legal route. Write to him giving him 14 days to make suitable repairs or you will commence an action against him in the County Court. If you have legal cover on your home insurance, they may be able to assist with this.

Why do you think they will be able to make a recovery against the neighbour. Going off the OP the neighbour has done nothing wrong so no recovery would happen. This is unless the neighbour had been negligent in some way - ie if it was rotten and was aware of it and failed to do anything to mitigate any damage. The same applies to any legal action stated by the previous poster

OP - if he is willing to do something i would keep him sweet as he doesnt have to do this. You can of course claim for the damage through your own insurance however any excess would be applicable

Mojisola

k212 wrote: »

Going back to the end of April during the really bad winds, a very tall and heavy tree came down from my neighbours garden, crushing a fence and a cracking a 7ft brick wall (top to bottom)
The neighbour was good enough to offer to sort the damage, however, at this point in time the wall has remained un-touched, and the fence has only just been replaced with a panel of a completely different colour, a fraction higher with screws half hanging out! It looks horrendous. We purchased a new house in December with all new fencing surrounding it, and this is just an eye sore!

You can't force your neighbour to put up a fence that you like. If you offered to pay to have a matching panel put in place, would he agree to that?

The wall is a different matter because it could hurt someone if the damage is enough to make it fall down. There are good people on https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/ - it would be worth asking on there.

iamcornholio

gazza975526570 wrote: »

Going off the OP the neighbour has done nothing wrong so no recovery would happen.

So the neighbour probably has his records of routine inspection and maintenance and has got a recent experts report that the tall tree was in fact safe, and well rooted and not affected by the adjacent ground in any way?

It's not a case of not doing anything wrong, it's a case of him proving that he actively managed the tree and assessed it regularly. That will be his negligence - as it would for most people who don't bother to give trees on their land a second thought

phill99

gazza975526570 wrote: »

Why do you think they will be able to make a recovery against the neighbour. Going off the OP the neighbour has done nothing wrong so no recovery would happen. This is unless the neighbour had been negligent in some way - ie if it was rotten and was aware of it and failed to do anything to mitigate any damage. The same applies to any legal action stated by the previous poster

OP - if he is willing to do something i would keep him sweet as he doesnt have to do this. You can of course claim for the damage through your own insurance however any excess would be applicable

People on this site are obsessed with the concept of Negligence.

My parents live in a terrace house and 2 years ago next door had a fire as a result of a chip pan fire. The fire affected my parents house including damage to windows and a bedroom. My parents were advised by the neighbours insurance company to claim off their own insurance and the neighbours insurance would indemnify my parents insurers. My parents didn't pay an increased premium as a result.

Look at a scenario. If a slate falls off your roof and hits someone on the head causing brain damage, you may not have been negligent, but you insurers will pay out. This is under the occupier liability part of the policy. Which is exactly the same as the case in hand.

So stop ranting in about negligence when you clearly don't have a clue whr you are talking about.

dacouch

phill99 wrote: »

People on this site are obsessed with the concept of Negligence.

My parents live in a terrace house and 2 years ago next door had a fire as a result of a chip pan fire. The fire affected my parents house including damage to windows and a bedroom. My parents were advised by the neighbours insurance company to claim off their own insurance and the neighbours insurance would indemnify my parents insurers. My parents didn't pay an increased premium as a result.

Look at a scenario. If a slate falls off your roof and hits someone on the head causing brain damage, you may not have been negligent, but you insurers will pay out. This is under the occupier liability part of the policy. Which is exactly the same as the case in hand.

So stop ranting in about negligence when you clearly don't have a clue whr you are talking about.

Actually he's right, just because a tree falls over does not mean he's liable. If the tree was well maintained then he would not be liable, if however he has not maintained it or ignored obvious signs of rot etc then he would be liable.

Your example of your parents fire is due to the chip fan fire be a negligent act. It's reasonable (Which is how a court works out negligence) for someone not to leave a chip pan unattended thus they're liable.

If the fire had been caused by a vandal throwing a fire work through their letter box they would not be liable.

A good example of how you can take avoid liability is Mcdonald's, if you go into their toilets they have a written schedule of when the toilets were last inspected / cleaned. If someone slipped up in the toilet and sued them, they would send the schedule of cleaning / inspection to the court or the solicitors and this would demonstrate they're taken reasonable steps to prevent a slipping claim. The claim would not get anywhere.

If someone without any previous medical conditions has a heart attack whilst driving their car and crashes into your car or a bus stop full of people. Their Insurers would not have to pay out anything.

gazza975526570

phill99 wrote: »

So stop ranting in about negligence when you clearly don't have a clue whr you are talking about.

Do i not?! Well 20 years experience tells me otherwise but ill allow people to think otherwise and we will see in 6 months what has happened for the OP!!

Hopefully if they are a friendly neighbour they may sort it. Under insurance they do not.

k212

Thank you all for your responses. Perhaps this is another grey area with property insurance?
I was under the impression (like Phil mentioned) that because it was something from his land that had damaged my property that he would be immediately liable, and when we spoke about it initally he took full responsibility - so I didn't think any different!

It might be a case that we have to think about sorting it together, as he did admit to me, that because the tree was higher than our house, he couldn't see why it was just fall due to winds, and that perhaps the roots were damaged when the fence posts and sewage was put in when our houses were built (He was paid a large settlement fee to go through his property)
So I think at one stage he was thinking there might be a chance he could claim from the development company.

Anyway, Many Thanks again.

Innys

dacouch wrote: »

If someone without any previous medical conditions has a heart attack whilst driving their car and crashes into your car or a bus stop full of people. Their Insurers would not have to pay out anything.

I'm sorry, but this statement is utter rubbish. I used to work in motor insurance claims and I know that the Road Traffic Act is quite onerous with regard to the obligations of insurers.

However, I won't elaborate as I think this thread is at risk of losing sight of the original question the OP asked.