Property damage/ neighbour dispute

xylophone

http://www.confused.com/home-insurance/articles/will-your-home-insurance-cover-neighbour-damage might be of interest.

Duvaljones

lisyloo wrote: »

So she has 3 daughters with nice cars (maybe their husbands company cars) and from this your judging the mothers finances?
Good luck with it but reading what you've written has some weird logical leaps.

No leaps or judgments about the mothers finances, her daughters are well off with good jobs, two aren't married and have been paying for the work so far. For the record, their mum is actually a really nice lady but due to her age, she lets her daughters handle things for her and I don't want to bug her about it as it's not her who's been causing the problem. Both her and her daughters have asked that I deal with them rather than her. In any case, it still doesn't change the fact that the work done to my neighbours house is damaging mine and them refusing to acknowledge it has put me in this position. Trying to resolve things amicably hasn't worked after 5-6 months of dialogue, a period of time I think is plenty to have had the necessary work done. Most people would probably have reached the point I'm now at after a month, so I think I've been more than reasonable by giving them this much time.

lisyloo

I don't think there is any argument that she is liable or that you've been reasonable, but the question is the practicality of extracting the money.

When you say the daughters have been paying, do you mean they've been paying themselves? Or that they administer her finances?
It's still not clear (to me) what assets she has beyond her home.
The daughters are of course not liable (unless they are owners or have some power of attorney).
So if it was the case that the daughters have paid so far and she has no money, then that's not a good scenario (for example).

Duvaljones

lisyloo wrote: »

Sounds like it's down to you to finance the legal action then unless you can get a conditional fee agreement?

As much as I would love to think they would agree to that, having dealt with them over the past 5-6 months, I really can't see them doing that. These are people who refused to spend £30 on replacing a a missing fence panel (which is still missing - a separate and far less pressing matter!).

Duvaljones

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't think there is any argument that she is liable or that you've been reasonable, but the question is the practicality of extracting the money.

When you say the daughters have been paying, do you mean they've been paying themselves? Or that they administer her finances?
It's still not clear (to me) what assets she has beyond her home.
The daughters are of course not liable (unless they are owners or have some power of attorney).
So if it was the case that the daughters have paid so far and she has no money, then that's not a good scenario (for example).

Although I don't know for absolute certain, one daughter did mention that they'd all 'club together to help out', so from that I assumed (which I know can be dangerous!) that it's them paying, rather than her. Of course I'm not privy to my neighbour's financial situation, nor should I be, so there's no way of being sure.

lisyloo

You make a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor (if they are willing to take you case). The neighbours don't need to agree to anything. You go to court and hopefully you win.

What I'm trying to say is that if the owner has no money then you're solicitors will have a job getting it. The house could be sold but you have the obstacle of evicting an elderly lady and there are laws about kicking out elderly people.
You might get a charge on the house that gets paid when she dies or goes into a home.
I don't know but the fact that the daughters are clubbing together might mean she doesn't have much cash, but ultimately the solicitors have to decide whether they want to take the risk (unless you're funding the legal fees yourself).

Duvaljones

lisyloo wrote: »

You make a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor (if they are willing to take you case). The neighbours don't need to agree to anything. You go to court and hopefully you win.

What I'm trying to say is that if the owner has no money then you're solicitors will have a job getting it. The house could be sold but you have the obstacle of evicting an elderly lady and there are laws about kicking out elderly people.

My mistake, I wasn't sure what a conditional fee agreement was so thank you for clarifying. As for eviction, I might have reached the end of my patience but I'm not a monster! All I want is for the root cause of the damage to be confirmed, repaired and our ceilings made good. Basically, to have my house back to the state it was in before this all happened. The thought of it going as far as having anyone kicked out of their house is just horrible and not what I want at all.

chewmylegoff

Duvaljones wrote: »

Thanks for the replies so far.

Unfortunately my insurance only covers storm damage to my roof, it won't cover damage caused in any other way.

The solicitor search begins in earnest tomorrow, then I'll give the neighbour one last chance to accept responsibility. Although even if she does, I don't think it will make her do anything with any urgency. As for ££'s, her 3 daughters deal with things for her as she's elderly, and they all pull-up in the latest BMWs and Audis, so I don't think lack of funds could be a feasible excuse.

Thanks again.

But damage to your roof isn't the relevant issue, surely? From what you have described, you are suffering damage to your property as a result of water penetration from the adjoining property. Have you already tried and failed to claim on your buildings insurance policy? Personally I would at least try this before thinking about self funded legal action.

pmlindyloo

Considering how much this is going to cost you in legal fees and potentially little hope of getting the money back even if you have a good case, I am wondering if a different approach might be worth consideration.

Could you ask your Neighbours if your builder coul look and see if he can find the problem?

It may be that the actual cause of the damp/leak can be fixed relatively easily and would not require a total re roofing.

Once the cost was known then if you paid for it and then you could come to some sort of repayment agreement with your Neighbour.

I know this isn't morally right but in the end you may be better off financially going this route, plus the damp would be sorted.

Duvaljones

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Have you already tried and failed to claim on your buildings insurance policy? Personally I would at least try this before thinking about self funded legal action.

I have talked it through with my insurer (at some length) and they've confirmed I'm not covered.