Told neighbor I pay for trampoline damage if I'm responsible, but am I responsible?

[Deleted User]

girlneedshelp wrote: »

I did ask my neighbor hypothetically if he would just accept £1000 and either just live with the two minor dents or have them fixed and pocket the rest. He said, no, he would only accept £2400, and that as an act of good faith he wouldn't hold me responsible for paying for a rental car for him for 7 days while his car is fixed at the auto body repair.

At the end of the conversation (he talked for nearly 30 minutes), he said that this offer was subject to paying him directly, as it's "possible" he might be willing to just live with the dents, but that would be his decision, only after I paid him the £2400 quoted by the auto body repair.

I would not offer him anything... Especially as he was aware of a potential issue and did nothing....


!!!! happens, that's why insurance was invented.


Similar thing happened to me when in high winds only it was me that got stiffed by claiming on insurance. Nothing else I could have done.


Over the years I paid for several bodyshop repairs, instead of going through insurance and none have been over £300 for worse sounding damage.


This guy needs to stop being so arrogant and shop around as bodyshops vary in price massively. It's only a bloody car.

girlneedshelp

I spoke to my neighbor this afternoon about the damage, and told him what my home insurance said, namely:

1. Claim on his car insurance and they will go after my home insurance for the money owed. or
2. Go to small claims, and the home insurance will take responsibility for the claim and pay out if successful. I gave him my insurance details, policy number, etc.

My neighbor said that he was definitely not going to claim on his car insurance, so that was out. They are going to think through what to do over the weekend. He was pretty angry, saying that this is going to get "ugly." I told him that I would help them get the necessary forms to file with the county court. He said that this isn't what he wants, as he doesn't actually want to fix the car now, but wants to be compensated for the damage. I'm not sure why he said that, as I was under the impression that the insurance company would pay the judgement to him, and not to an autobody, so I'm a bit puzzled by that. Shouldn't he still be able to pocket the money if successful? That's what I understood anyway...

Mojisola

girlneedshelp wrote: »

He said that this isn't what he wants, as he doesn't actually want to fix the car now, but wants to be compensated for the damage.

Now you've got to the truth - he's not really worried about the dents at all but saw a chance to get a nice lump sum from you.

Herzlos

His insurance company will more than likely just get the damaged repaired through an approved bodyshop and your neighbour won't see any cash. They may offer him some cash in leu of the repair at a reduced rate, or they may write it off and buy the car from him, but both are unlikely.

How ugly is it likely to get?

Aretnap

From a legal point of view, if you were liable for the damage, then what you're actually liable for would be the diminution in value his property suffered as a result of the accident. In other words, the difference between what his car would have sold for 5 minutes before the trampoline landed on it, and what it would have sold for 5 minutes after the trampoline landed on it.

Strictly speaking, the cost of repairs is only relevant because, in most cases, the repair cost is likely to be a reasonable measure of the diminution in value it has suffered (if I was buying a damaged car I'd be offering something close to the price of a pristine car, less what I thought it would cost me to repair it).

What he does with the money after you've paid him is his business - he can spend it on repairs, he can sell the damaged car and use your money to help buy a new one, or he can just live with the damage and spend the money on beer if he wants to.

So from a legal viewpoint he's quite correct that not actually getting the repairs done doesn't necessarily mean that he can't claim from you. OTOH demanding a couple of grand for some dents that he's not actually all that bothered about isn't a particularly neighbourly thing to do, and if he wants to take the purely legalistic view then I'd say you shouldn't feel guilty about taking an equally legalistic view yourself, and telling him to see you in court.

(This applies if he tried to claim directly from you, or from your home insurer. If he claimed from his car insurer they wouldn't pay him cash - they'd repair his car for him, as then it's a question of what his policy says they'll do, rather than a legal question of how liability is quantified)

verityboo

If he is on about compensation and has shown his true colors I wouldn't discuss any further with him directly

If he approaches you directly again about it (perhaps offering to accept a slightly lower figure) I would refer him to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram !

DoaM

girlneedshelp wrote: »

He was pretty angry, saying that this is going to get "ugly."

Tell him it's already gotten ugly by him trying to scam you.

unholyangel

GunJack wrote: »

Small Claims Court isn't the same... CCJ is when you have a debt and the creditor trys to claim it, which, by the sound of it, whichever way the court decides, you won't have...either it's for him to claim off his insurance or yours pay out. Or put it another way, you haven't defaulted on anything to have a CCJ against you...

Where on earth did you come up with that?

CCJ = County Court Judgement
Small claims = County Court

Therefore, you go to small claims and lose (regardless if its a debt claimed under contract or a claim for damages under tort), you have a CCJ awarded against you. That CCJ will not be registered on your credit record unless you fail to satisfy it within the time given by the courts (usually a month).

I think perhaps you're getting confused. If you take out credit, then they can register a default (which is not a CCJ) on your credit history without having to take you to court. But even those companies would still need to take you to court to get a CCJ against you.

David_Aston

These forums are wonderful for the absolute opposite views on liability or otherwise which come up in these situations.
I agree with the poster about the belated realisation that the trampoline should have been secured against high winds. I admit to no legal knowledge but would have thought natural justice would have alloted the blame to her.
Equally, the getting of three quotes, and going with the lowest also seems reasonable.
I have seen her later posts.
Good luck with the situation Op.

photome

girlneedshelp wrote: »

. He was pretty angry, saying that this is going to get "ugly." I told him that I would be completely honest about the status of the trampoline if asked, and that I would help them get the necessary forms to file with the county court. He said that this isn't what he wants, as he doesn't actually want to fix the car now, but wants to be compensated for the damage. I'm not sure why he said that, as I was under the impression that the insurance company would pay the judgement to him, and not to an autobody, so I'm a bit puzzled by that. Shouldn't he still be able to pocket the money if successful? That's what I understood anyway...

sounds like an a*******

what does he mean by ugly?

the trade in value of his car may have reduced by a few hundred pounds but not £2400, so if all he wants is compo then a few hundred should do it