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

girlneedshelp

SarahRob wrote: »

I'd tell him to claim from his insurers, he may think twice about going through that hassle and go somewhere else to get the car fixed at a more reasonable cost.

£2500 isn't something most people can pull out of their back pocket. So setting up a payment plan with him could be an option?

I have a friend who fixes dents from battered cars and they come out like new, so getting new panels isn't always needed. He is clearly just being awkward.

I believe it's neither his fault nor yours, just bad luck what with terrible weather.

I don't know if he has collision or 3rd party only on his car, so I don't know if that is an option. He has a reputation for being a bit "awkward", so I kinda suspected that this was going to happen when he said he was going to get an estimate. £2400 just seems excessive to me. I don't kow...

elsien

Do you have legal cover on any of your insurances? Just wondering if they could offer any advice.

girlneedshelp

elsien wrote: »

Do you have legal cover on any of your insurances? Just wondering if they could offer any advice.

No, but some of the solicitors offer a free consultation, so perhaps I could get some free advice by making an appointment, and take it from there.

Stoke

Just refuse.

System

girlneedshelp wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I'm a bit of a wreck dealing with this, so I appreciate it. The quote my neighbor gave was written up from a reputable auto body repair centre. The parts list on the quote inclues:

Bonnet, L. Bonnet Hinge, Windscreen Bond Kit, Roof, Metallic Paint Work, Costs: Labour £769.50, Parts £477.44, Paint Materials £703.59, Additional Materials £3.00, Total: £1953.53 + VAT £390.71

Reading some of the conflicting advice, I'm not sure what to do. Several of you have given me a lot to think about...

That quote is quite reasonable. There was plenty of warning about the impending weather over the last week, it is widely known that in such storms things like trampolines can become airborne.

Your option is to pay or do nothing. If you do nothing then he may sue you for the costs of the repair. Whilst he can claim on his insurance that puts his premiums up for the next few years through no fault of his own.

Putting the shoe on the other foot what would you hope a neighbour would do if the roles were reversed?

System

SarahRob wrote: »

I'd tell him to claim from his insurers, he may think twice about going through that hassle and go somewhere else to get the car fixed at a more reasonable cost.

I have a friend who fixes dents from battered cars and they come out like new, so getting new panels isn't always needed. He is clearly just being awkward.

That quote was reasonable. You've not seen the car but given there is a window bonding kit on there I doubt its the kind of repair your mate could do and on horizontal flat panels like bonnets and roofs patch in paint jobs stick out like a sore thumb.

girlneedshelp

Tarambor wrote: »

That quote is quite reasonable. There was plenty of warning about the impending weather over the last week, it is widely known that in such storms things like trampolines can become airborne.

Your option is to pay or do nothing. If you do nothing then he may sue you for the costs of the repair. Whilst he can claim on his insurance that puts his premiums up for the next few years through no fault of his own.

Putting the shoe on the other foot what would you hope a neighbour would do if the roles were reversed?

Since you asked, I'll answer. If I had a neighbor who had a 45 kg trampoline for 10 years in their backyard without incident, and a six foot wall separating us, I wouldn't expect to pay £2400 for two small dents. The car is 18 months old, so it's probably worth a little over £5k. Two small dents didn't cause the car to suddently drop in price £2400. You can't even see the dents unless you look close. Yes, it was my trampoline, but would not be giving my neighbor a bill for the most expensive auto body repair in the area, and only consider using brand new parts, as opposed to an excellent repair and paint. That's just me though.

I'm thinking about getting my own estimates based on pictures, and the photocopied quote that the owner provided me. I have a feeling that the repairs could be done for well less than £1000. That's my thinking right now after thinking through all the advice suggested on this thread. I'm still open to change, but that's where I am at the moment....

arcon5

The neighbough has a duty to mitigate his losses op. He can't just get one expensive quote for the most expensive works and expect you to pay for it.

A lot of the pay up advice in this post is absolute tripe.

I'd recommend you go for a consultation for a legal advisor before agreeing to anything as it may also be the case you are not liable. Trampolines are heavy so you can necessarily reasonably expect one to fly 6ft over a fence.

arcon5

lewishardwick wrote: »

If that's what he wants, you have little choice. He could always go through his insurer and they'll probably cost more and stack on fees etc...

That's not the case though is it. He can't just demand the most expensive repair and get that. He has to mitigate his losses and if they can be adequately repaired without the need to replace completely then that should be done.
So don't start misleading the op

bigadaj

motorguy wrote: »

Its the O/Ps trampoline. An "act of god" took it out of their garden and dumped it on a neighbours car. Its THEIR fault. End of.

Fences are secured into the ground, its YOUR responsibility to ensure its secured in such a way as to not blow over and do damage to someone elses property. If it does you would be liable.

If you have a fence you need to ensure it is secured to cope with high winds. Likewise if you have a trampoline you need to ensure it is secured to cope with high winds.

It's nowhere as clear cut as that.

The injured party would have to show negligence and that the OP had acted unreasonably in not checking and ensuring the trampoline was secured.

I'm not saying they can't show that, just that in court I wouldn't have said it's an open and shut case. The trampoline has been there for ten years with no issues, within that time there will have been worse conditions than this week, so whilst you can argue it should have been checked and secured, it's not a reckless act not to have done so.

If this were commercial fencing then there would have been a higher level of duty and care, and because of regular claims on their insurance, goodwill and PR then firms would generally pay out.

My neighbours bmw coupe was damaged a few years ago with tiles blown from his roof, he rents and was ranting about how he was going to claim off the landlady. Think it just went through his car insurance in the end as there was no negligence that could be demonstrated.