Landlord's responsibility?

PippaGirl_2

I rent a property from my local authority as does my neighbour. As I rent I have contents but not buildings insurance, but have included shed contents cover. I purchased 2 sheds as there is no garage or other storage space here. The larger shed was expensive/strong and was/is full. In the storm a few days ago a large tree that was in the neighbours garden fell down and is now taking up every inch of my garden, even lying on its side it is 12-15ft high. It has completely crushed the large strong shed.

I have informed the council and someone in due course will come out and I guess the council will remove the tree as at present I have no garden at all, as it is all fallen tree. I can't get to the shed to see if anything is salvagable due to the tree, but I am sure that a lot of the contents are ruined from what I can see from my upstairs window, as the shed is clearly crushed.

I am assuming that my shed contents insurance cover doesn't cover the shed itself? I never thought I would need buildings insurance as I rent and it never occured to me something would crush the shed!

With my income as it is at the moment I live hand to mouth and have no prospect of replacing the shed if it is not covered by my insurance and will have to do without a shed if that's the case. But I was just wondering, as the tree belonged to the council and it has fallen and crushed my shed, are the council liable to replace my shed?

Long shot I know, but the only chance I have of getting it replaced.

TIA

Guest101

I would say yes, their property has damaged yours. However this could be a fight. They will argue no negligence. What is the shed worth?

anselld

Yes. There is no reason why you should not pursue a claim against the owners of the tree and/or their insurers for all you losses (shed plus any damaged contents).

PippaGirl_2

I do have shed contents insurance cover, though I do wonder if the insurance claim might fail because they say the LA should pay as it was their tree but I think the insurance company has a good reputation so I am hoping they would pay for anything that might be damaged inside the shed, I can't place a claim until I can get to the shed to see what is damaged. I've never claimed on contents insurance in my life so this will be a new experience for me.

I think the shed cost me £400 or more 3 years ago as it is large, strong and was pressure treated. Also a friend's husband took a week off work to put it up for me then (I have disabilities), and now really I would need to pay someone to put a new one up which would increase the cost hugely.

I am beginning to have some hope that the council might replace the shed, I'd thought I would have no hope and would just have to do without.

System

Unless you have proof that the owners were aware that their tree was in a dangerous condition then it is your insurance that picks up the tab.

From http://www.schofields.ltd.uk/blog/2211/fallen-tree-damage-insurance/ which is one of many sites that say similar

A tree has fallen from my neighbour’s garden in to mine. Who pays for the damage and removal of the tree?
If a tree from your neighbour’s garden falls in yours (or vice versa), causing damage to fences, again, it is unlikely you can claim on your neighbour’s insurance. Your neighbours policy covers their property not yours. You may, however, be able to claim for damages against you if you can prove a case of negligence.
Otherwise, it may typically be your responsibility to remove or chop up the tree for firewood and repair any damage – though one would hope that your neighbour would offer to help with costs.
How insurers deal with fallen trees varies from policy to policy. If you have trees that could potentially cause damage you should get clarification from your insurer on what’s covered.

Guest101

I disagree whilst their insurance might not cover it, the owner may still be liable.

System

As that article says, you would need to prove negligence; and probably chase through small claims. If you are lucky your insurance company may take up the baton for you but unlikely

Guest101

Negligence is not always necessary for liability, bit is for insurance

dacouch

Guest101 wrote: »

Negligence is not always necessary for liability, bit is for insurance

Liability Insurance is usually worded to the effect "To pays sums you are LEGALLY liable for"

The intention of the wording is to cover sums that if you were taken to court you would be liable for. In reality an Insurer would not wait for court to pay a claim that would be covered.

PippaGirl_2

In this article it seems to say the local authority are liable for the damage caused to other people's property, it doesn't seem to say they have to prove the LA are negligent?

System

That is about trees outside a property's boundaries. In this situation the LA is the Landlord and that is the aspect that needs to be considered. The fact that the landlord is also a local authority is not a factor.