Neighbour's Wheelie Bin Damaged my Car

magpiecottage

undaunted wrote: »

What?

So the Energy co.s, Council tax & anybody else seeking to recover their debts are all acting illegally according to you?

Don't be silly. An energy company is entitled to recover charges for supplies you contracted to use.

Council tax is a lawful tax that the local authority is not only entitled but legally bound to collect.

It is not unreasonable to warn a person that you are considering Court action if you believe you have a genuine grievance - as in this case. In fact the Courts expect you to have taken reasonable steps to avoid such action before proceeding to court.

And there is the point. The OP is NOT threatening them because of the grievance but because he believes, since they are young, he can intimidate them into paying for something that is not their fault.

MercOwner

magpiecottage wrote: »

Don't be silly. An energy company is entitled to recover charges for supplies you contracted to use.

Council tax is a lawful tax that the local authority is not only entitled but legally bound to collect.
And there is the point. The OP is NOT threatening them because of the grievance but because he believes, since they are young, he can intimidate them into paying for something that is not their fault.

Look, I'm not talking about purely threatening people. No matter what you might think, it's clearly arguable that they're liable, it's not a dead cert that I'd lost if I took them to court. So, I don't see why I can't threaten them with court proceedings. I'm happy to take the risk,maybe they're not.

magpiecottage

MercOwner wrote: »

Look, I'm not talking about purely threatening people.

Er - you said

MercOwner wrote: »

I've decided to write a legal letter threatening to sue if they don't pay.

So, I don't see why I can't threaten them with court proceedings. I'm happy to take the risk,maybe they're not.

So either you are making a threat which you intend to follow through on or you are simply relying on intimidation.

If it is the former, you are a fool because you will almost certainly lose and the detriment to the value of your home as a result of having a dispute that must be declared will be far greater than the cost of the repair.

If it is the latter then you are simply a bully.

swingaloo

MercOwner wrote: »

Look, I'm not talking about purely threatening people. No matter what you might think, it's clearly arguable that they're liable, it's not a dead cert that I'd lost if I took them to court. So, I don't see why I can't threaten them with court proceedings. I'm happy to take the risk,maybe they're not.

Only to you.

undaunted

Quentin wrote: »

Depends on your interpretation of 'nominal'

The 'nominal' fees you link to are simply the fee for issuing the claim (minimum £60 for a £600 claim)


The full cost of the court fees for the hearing will be £140 (for a £600 claim). When the OP loses then the OP will also have to pay the other sides loss of earnings + expenses for attending the court (as well as their own loss of earnings and expenses)

Most people would consider £60 on a £600 claim fairly nominal I think.

Unless you expect to be the Judge in that case we have yet to see what the verdict would be or indeed whether there will ever be a hearing. I suspect that if / when Mercowner presented themselves as having been & still willing to be reasonable and the defendant as totally intransigent the Court would in reality try & guide them towards settling the matter via mediation & should they fail to listen they may not get a very sympathetic hearing when it went to a hearing

undaunted

rs65 wrote: »

The court may consider the neighbour negligent. I personally don't think they will. The test of negligence is what a reasonable person would have done. I don't know anyone who ties there bin down. It would be up the OP to allege negligence and I don't think lack of tying down would convince the court


Liability insurers pay out for liability.


The court won't have to decide on that - that isn't a point that will be tested. The court will only decide if the neighbour has to pay. If the OP chooses to claim on their car insurance then their car insurer will pay. They have a contract that says they will pay - negligence of others doesn't matter.

On the first two points we appear to have no real issue beyond our differing views on who should foot the bill here!

On the latter I wasn't suggesting that the Court would. It was a direct question to you (in response to your own suggestion) as to why you apparently believe that Mercowner should be left to pay for this damage (claiming from their insurer is not free - no claims bonus loss = higher premiums for years in the future!)

System

This thread is wonderfully entertaining. I do hope the characters in the story are real and that we are going to be allowed to hear the final outcome.

undaunted

MercOwner wrote: »

No, I'd still park next to the crumbling wall and tell the neighbours to sort it, or they'll be liable for any damage to my car. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to use my own driveway because they haven't looked after their wall. As I said before, there's nowhere else for me to park!

I don't think this is trolling or as silly as suggested by some here.

It is not unreasonable to expect to be able to park on your own drive.

It is not unreasonable to expect & ask the neighbour to either repair or remove a crumbling wall to prevent damage to your property.

I wonder how many of the above would be so willing to write off £600 off damage if it were they who had to pay for it rather than you?

undaunted

magpiecottage wrote: »

Don't be silly. An energy company is entitled to recover charges for supplies you contracted to use.

Council tax is a lawful tax that the local authority is not only entitled but legally bound to collect.
And there is the point. The OP is NOT threatening them because of the grievance but because he believes, since they are young, he can intimidate them into paying for something that is not their fault.

That is your interpretation of matters. It is not necessarily a fact and nor is it the stated position of Mercowner. You have seemingly sought to distort what was actually said in order to suit your own agenda / views.

If Mercowner believes they have a legitimate claim, regardless of whether you, I, other posters or the neighbours agree with them or not they are quite entitled to both pursue that claim in Court and prior to that warn the neighbours of their intention to do so. What the neighbours choose to do in response is entirely a matter for them to decide.

rs65

undaunted wrote: »

On the latter I wasn't suggesting that the Court would. It was a direct question to you (in response to your own suggestion) as to why you apparently believe that Mercowner should be left to pay for this damage (claiming from their insurer is not free - no claims bonus loss = higher premiums for years in the future!)

Simply because no-one else will.