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

Stoke

cajef wrote: »

I would like to know where you can buy a new Beamer or Merc for 7 grand?

touche sir

pinkshoes

The 45kg mass of the trampoline is irrelevant. It has a large surface area so very easily swept into the air in high winds, depending on wind direction. On this basis, it NEEDS to be tied down, and is unlikely to count as an 'act of god'.

I had to tether my neighbour's trampoline a few months ago in high winds after watching it fly 15ft into the air!! I spent £25 on stakes to tether ours to the ground.

Anyway... your neighbour needs to go through his insurance and then they can claim off your insurance.

greenbee

Kim_kim wrote: »

I don’t have my trampoline restrained. It has to be moveable for when the lawn is mowed.
This thread has given me something to think about!!
I may give mine away, it’s there for my grandchildren & they don’t visit me much, I go to them.

I move mine when the lawn is mowed (and move it around), but use traps and ground spikes as well, which I bought with it based on suggestions from friends - they were an optional extra on the site when I ordered. If I know the weather will be bad i also weight it down with logs/rubble/sandbags or whatever I have to hand. this time we made the decision to dismantle it (took about 15 minutes for 2 of us) as although it wouldn't have taken off we were pretty sure the net at least would be damaged if the winds were as high as forecast.

I'm going to leave it down for a while so I can get the grass cut with less hassle...

Aretnap

MataNui wrote: »

As a test i wonder what the OPs insurer would do if the OP was claiming for a new patio window / furniture etc because their own unsecured trampoline blew into it? Pretty sure they would then be saying the OP was negligent and should of secured it so they wouldnt pay out.

If the OP was claiming for damage to his own property then the question of negligence would be irrelevant. If the insurance policy had a clause to say that it wouldn't pay for damage caused by insecure trampolines then it wouldn't pay out - if not then it would.

"Insurers won't pay out if you're negligent" is basically an urban myth, believed by people who don't know much about insurance. It's true that most policies do have a clause which requires you to take "reasonable care" of your property, or a similar wording, but the courts and the Financial Ombudsman quite rightly don't like insurance companies refusing claims on the basis of such vaguely worded clauses, and so the level of stupidity that's required to activate them is very high indeed - higher than negligence, and higher than anything the OP has done. The actual standard is recklessness, ie the insurer would have to prove that the customer knew, or must have known, that what they were doing was unreasonably dangerous, and that they went ahead and did it in spite of being aware of the risks. That might apply if you tossed your TV set down a flight of stairs for your friend to catch because you couldn't be bothered carrying it - but not if you were a bit silly or careless, or you forgot to tie down your trampoline on a windy day.

BeenThroughItAll

It sounds like everyone's lives would be immeasurably improved if people would just stop buying bloody trampolines.

They're hellish. Can't go anywhere these days without seeing them, and any sunny afternoon all you can hear is 'twang-twang-twang-ouch-scream-cry-twang'.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

It sounds like everyone's lives would be immeasurably improved if people would just stop buying bloody trampolines.

They're hellish. Can't go anywhere these days without seeing them, and any sunny afternoon all you can hear is 'twang-twang-twang-ouch-scream-cry-twang'.

Ask your local fracture clinic what their biggest source of customers is. Yep. Perhaps ITV's income from You've Been Framed could be directed into the NHS for the less humorous incidents. Can't believe anyone risks their kids on them.

unholyangel

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Ask your local fracture clinic what their biggest source of customers is. Yep. Perhaps ITV's income from You've Been Framed could be directed into the NHS for the less humorous incidents. Can't believe anyone risks their kids on them.

According to a 2013 study of fractures in under 16s and their cause....snowboarding (and at a rate 4 times higher than football and 5 times higher than trampolines)

AdrianC

unholyangel wrote: »

According to a 2013 study of fractures in under 16s and their cause....snowboarding (and at a rate 4 times higher than football and 5 times higher than trampolines)

Somehow, I suspect that does not apply in the UK...

...unless...
https://www.jumpfactory.co.uk/news/post/snowboard-trampoline-training-how-trampolines-help-with-snowboarding1

Warwick_Hunt

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote: »

I know nothing about cars so, in my ignorance, I'm surprised the neighbour is having the roof and bonnet replaced in their entirety.

Isn't that going to make it difficult to sell the car later on? Buyers might think it's had substantial crash damage with the car rolling over.

Or can the garage conceal all trace of replacement?

He would need to declare the repair as it's not a write off.

nobile

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...

I would like to query the 'additional materials - £3'