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

esuhl

lush_walrus wrote: »

Be careful of strangers talking you into a dispute with your neighbours...

The OP is already in a dispute with her neighbour.

qwert_yuiop

Herzlos wrote: »

If your saying the car is a year old and cost £7000 new, it's presumably only worth about £5000 now?

If so, it might be cheaper to offer to buy his car for the pre-damage value and then keep it yourself or sell it on after just getting it repaired.

I don't think he'd be happy to accept that £5000.

qwert_yuiop

Stoke wrote: »

It's also what he pays for!!

He pays it because he has to. Then, like everybody else, he'll do his utmost to avoid using it.

bigadaj

esuhl wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. He's trying it on.



This article from 2015 claims that there is no such thing as "acts of god" clauses in any new UK insurance policies.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-3373352/Do-Act-God-clauses-really-exist-pays-check-insurance.html

It would be well worth reading the full policy so you know exactly what you're covered for, rather than relying on the word of the insurance company.

I don't disagree with the gist of your general response but this is a really poor comment.

Aside from the fact that your quoting from a daily mail article which itself just makes a generic statement about act of God clauses aren't allowed, they are patently included in all contracts.

They are generally termed force majeure, and in accordance with any contract set out the limits of that contract and what may be excluded. Exclusions are necessary because the insurer will price their policy on the basis of known and calculable information, some issues can't be estimated on the balance of probability so are specifically excluded.

In a consumer contract the onus is on the corporate body to specify that rather than the consumer but these clauses still exist and will do under contract law.

The other issues is that as so often, everyone seems to be taking a side and is then convinced they are right.

The neighbour doesn't come across very well but that doesn't take away from the issue of liability.

As I've stated before, I don't think this is an open and shut case, it's not obvious that the OP has a liability but it's certainly the case that they could be shown to be liable, it could certainly be argued that they were negligent.

sheramber

Just a thought. Since he refuses to claim on is insurance does he have insurance?

Warwick_Hunt

sheramber wrote: »

Just a thought. Since he refuses to claim on is insurance does he have insurance?

Makes no difference to the OP whether he does or doesn't.

girlneedshelp

trailingspouse wrote: »

Just a thought - if the OP is liable because they haven't secured their trampoline, and it was obvious that in a high wind the trampoline could fly over the fence, then perhaps the neighbour is also negligent for leaving his car in a place where it could be damaged... In fact, the fence could have blown on to it.

I think you might be possibly right, but I'm new at all this, and it's not entirely clear to me. While I was taking a video of the damage with my neighbor's permission, he said (while I was recording) that they saw the trampoline go up into the air several feet, and were concerned it might damage their car. He said that he then went for a walk past my house, but decided in the end not to tell me, as they didn't want to bother me. Since they didn't move their car, particularly as there was an empty garage ten feet in front of their car, I'm wondering if this could be a case of contributory negligence. If I'm found liable, could they also be found partially liable for not moving the car after seeing the trampoline go into the air several feet and expressing some degree of worry before the trampoline came over the fence?

Perhaps someone here has some further insight on that point...

girlneedshelp

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

I don't think he'd be happy to accept that £5000.

The Parkers price for the car in good condition (private seller) is around £5000. My neighbor suggested that I buy the car from him for £6000 as he says that Parkers notoriously underprices its cars.

Richard53

girlneedshelp wrote: »

The Parkers price for the car in good condition (private seller) is £4800, although that doesn't include metallic paint, so I'm figuring around £5000. My neighbor suggested that I buy the car from him for £6000 as he says that Parkers notoriously underprices its cars.

He really is taking the Mick now. In my experience, Parkers often overprices the cars - at least it has when I have been selling, when I have rarely achieved anything like their recommended Private Sale value. The only reliable guide is Glass's, used by the trade. Go no further with this man.

esuhl

girlneedshelp wrote: »

I think you might be possibly right, but I'm new at all this, and it's not entirely clear to me. While I was taking a video of the damage with my neighbor's permission, he said (while I was recording) that they saw the trampoline go up into the air several feet, and were concerned it might damage their car. He said that he then went for a walk past my house, but decided in the end not to tell me, as they didn't want to bother me. Since they didn't move their car, particularly as there was an empty garage ten feet in front of their car, I'm wondering if this could be a case of contributory negligence. If I'm found liable, could they also be found partially liable for not moving the car after seeing the trampoline go into the air several feet and expressing some degree of worry before the trampoline came over the fence?

Perhaps someone here has some further insight on that point...

He's clearly admitting that he knew the location he'd parked his car meant that would very possibly be damaged, and he did nothing to move his car, secure the trampoline, or contact you. Sounds like its entirely his problem, but I'm not a lawyer.

Keep that recording safe -- make a backup now!

girlneedshelp wrote: »

The Parkers price for the car in good condition (private seller) is £4800, although that doesn't include metallic paint, so I'm figuring around £5000. My neighbor suggested that I buy the car from him for £6000 as he says that Parkers notoriously underprices its cars.

Is this a wind-up? You must be absolutely loaded to be thinking of buying a car for no reason other than you scratched it.

Scratches don't affect how a car works. And your neighbour is persistently trying to scam you. If it were me, I'd do nothing and wait for him to put it through his/your insurance. At which point you can forward the video where he (appears to) admit negligence.