Help with small claims advice and neighbour

Cheeky_Monkey

As others have said, you really are barking up the wrong tree!

You have been given good advice to either sue the company and not your neighbour or let it go.

If you choose to carry on in your own merry little blinkered way then so be it ......... but be prepared to take the consequences which, as others have said, will probably not be very pleasant.

Chances are that, despite you not wanting to go anywhere any time soon, the neighbour will make your life so unbearable you'll be desperate to move but won't be able to sell your house

GM11

try and remember a good old saying..........act in haste and you repent at leisure

pmlindyloo

Have you read up about suing in the Small Claims court?

See here:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm

Also some useful links in there.

I also agree that you should be suing the company. Perhaps a trip to CAB might help you find out who to sue?

I get the feeling that you are just cheesed off with your neighbour and feel it better to sue him than a company. If this is the wrong person to sue then you will have wasted a large sum of money and made a big enemy of your neighbour (not a good idea)

Looking at the claim form you need the defendant's name and address. They ask for details of what occurred and the financial loss. You will probably get away with saying 'in the month of...' but you need to be clear about your 'financial loss'. This should be detailed and fair. It is not good enough to put some arbitrary figure.

The builder/sand blaster has trespassed on your property and created a mess - that is why I think you are suing the wrong person.

I can understand how fed up you are if building work has gone on for such a long time - no doubt creating noise and inconvenience.

Anyone who has used the Small Claims process will know it is not as straightforward as it seems. Even if you get a judgement against your neighbour/company you may never see the money.

Do you really want all this hassle.

In an ideal world people/companies should not be allowed to 'get away with such things' but you need to be realistic.

If you have all the time in the world, deep pockets, a calm disposition and couldn't care less about neighbour relationships then go ahead - just make sure you are sung the right person.

If it hadn't happened so long ago I would have suggested contacting the local paper and naming and shaming the company but feel that it is a bit late now.

princeofpounds

Yes, you can get judgments against persons unknown. But it adds an extra layer of complication to the process as you would typically need to then use court procedure to confirm who that person is and enforce it.

Date is less of an issue.

But as other people have said, you want to chase the company that did the damage.

Small claims is NOT that difficult or expensive. But it might not be worthwhile in terms of time and effort. Enforcement can also be hard with the shadier types of businesses and individuals. Depends whether you want to do it on a point of principle or not.

The bonus is that if you sue the company I don't think it will count as a neighbour dispute. And even if it does it's easily explainable as a closed matter.

It wouldn't be hard to find out your neighbour's name either if you needed to. But you don't.

Full_of_angst

Heart_Felt wrote: »

He doesn't actually live there yet, he purchased the house last year and since then has come every single week to do up the house. He decided to sandblast the front and the company he used didn't put up scaffolding or any protection. Basically it ruined the front of our garden, some plants died and it took us a full day to clear up. I contacted him and he was disinterested. Luckily I got the name of the company off the van but after much chasing around they also refused to clear up. They left tape on my door, didn't ask to come on my property to do this either. My hallway/vestibule was also covered in a layer of whatever is used to blast with as were the windows. I am still finding crap in the garden 6 months on. I wrote to him asking him to reimburse us for the cost of materials (replacing some decorative stones, the plants and a day's worth of work). He ignored us and the company said to go ahead and take them to court. My recourse is with the neighbour, not the company. I feel that just ignoring me is out of order because I do have a genuine complaint. I asked nicely at first and pointed out the mess. He wouldn't even ring the company on my behalf to ask them to come clear up. The paint/debris was mixed up in all my garden due to bad weather. Basically a bit of nightmare. I have photographs. I am not sure why you would wish to treat someone in this manner especially as you have intent to move in. Things are very awkward now, he is making us feel very uncomfortable. I wrote to him stressing how wrong this was I thought he would respond. I was wrong. As I informed him in the letter I would take him to small claims I would like to follow through.
Thanks for responding.

I am sure the company would be liable under the Strict Liability rules. They should have known of the risk, or were reckless to the risk, of causing damage to neighbouring properties.

GM11

this forum seems to provide alot of good technical advice, however it often seems to lack the application of common sense. i mean no offence to anyone, but consider the following.
from the technical point it would seem the OP based on facts presented here has a open and shut case for small claims against the company and a almost guaranteed chance of gaining a win in small claims court. BUT lets apply a little common sense and take a look at the realities of the situation.
from what has been said the company are a bunch of cowboys that have upgraded there horse for a van! there attitude would seem to point to them not caring a jot for there reputation or indeed tradeing in an ethecal manor,
try and remember that the point of small claims court isnt gaining a WIN! it's purpose is for you to be compensated for loss etc. does anyone honestly think that if the OP won (likely) they would actually see a penny?
i doubt it very much. This seems like a company that woudnt hesitate to close down at a drop of a hat and phoenix a week later to carry on. so yes for a little money you could get a win! but i personally think thats all it would be, i think the chances of you actually getting any coin of the realm put into your sweaty palms is ZERO

regards Jason

Davesnave

GM11 wrote: »

this forum seems to provide alot of good technical advice, however it often seems to lack the application of common sense......

.... yes for a little money you could get a win! but i personally think thats all it would be, i think the chances of you actually getting any coin of the realm put into your sweaty palms is ZERO

regards Jason

To be fair, I think a good number of us have said or implied this.

OP wants a fair and just settlement, and wouldn't we all, but experience teaches us that life is often unfair. Sometimes, the best response is to shrug a nasty experience off and put our energies into something more productive than seeking restitution or retribution.

hawk30

Full_of_angst wrote: »

I am sure the company would be liable under the Strict Liability rules. They should have known of the risk, or were reckless to the risk, of causing damage to neighbouring properties.

I think you mean vicarious liability - strict liability is for criminal offences that don't require mens rea. Even if you could argue that it applied, you should always sue the person with the most money, which is likely to be the company.

tim123456789

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Personally, I would be suing the sand-blasting company rather than the neighbour: I doubt that he instructed them to damage your property; had they done the job properly you would not have had any problems. And since you saw the van presumably you know the date it was there, which was surely the date of the incident.

and doing this wont count as a dispute with your neighbour

Full_of_angst

hawk30 wrote: »

I think you mean vicarious liability - strict liability is for criminal offences that don't require mens rea. Even if you could argue that it applied, you should always sue the person with the most money, which is likely to be the company.

I meant strict liability. They have caused damage to the property. They did not have mens rea for criminal damage, but they should have known, could reasonably have known, or were reckless to the risk of that damage being caused. I would have said it was a very strong case for a strict liability offence; and a tenuous case for straight forward criminal damage (mens rea can be proven by the recklessness).