Neighbours wheelie bin hitting the car

JamoLew

bartelbe said:

If you intend to live in the area long term I would think long and hard about taking legal action against a neighbour, even if you are in the right. These things have a nasty habit of spiraling out of control and could cost you more in the long run than the costs of fixing that dent.

Whilst I agree 100% -- people still need to take responsibility for their actions and make good where there has been a financial loss to others via their actions, they can't be given carte blanche to do what they like without fear of consequence

Very tricky situation

Only the OP can determine the next step

chrisw

I'm not that sure they would be found negligent, it's something very hard to prove as it's not black and white. Had you said to them 'don't put that there, the forecast is for strong winds tonight and it could blow over and hit my car' then you could have a case. But they could just say they hadn't seen the forecast, they thought the weight would hold it down, your drive was less windy, etc. 

You might be applying common sense to somebody who doesn't have a lot of it, but that in itself doesn't make them negligent.

NottinghamKnight

chrisw said:

I'm not that sure they would be found negligent, it's something very hard to prove as it's not black and white. Had you said to them 'don't put that there, the forecast is for strong winds tonight and it could blow over and hit my car' then you could have a case. But they could just say they hadn't seen the forecast, they thought the weight would hold it down, your drive was less windy, etc. 

You might be applying common sense to somebody who doesn't have a lot of it, but that in itself doesn't make them negligent.

But from what the OP reports it doesn't sound like something that would be done by a reasonable person.

dcfc67

Can you take some pics and then get in touch with a company like chips away who come to your house and do mthe work. They could possibly give you a quote by looking at the pics.

Then take your neighbour through the small claims court but only if you think they have the means to pay.


i have my car on PCP and always take out scratch and dent cover usually around £300 for 3 years with £15 excess.
I arrange this through a 3rd party insurer not the dealership who charge £500 plus

Daz8855

dcfc67 said:

Can you take some pics and then get in touch with a company like chips away who come to your house and do mthe work. They could possibly give you a quote by looking at the pics.

Then take your neighbour through the small claims court but only if you think they have the means to pay.


i have my car on PCP and always take out scratch and dent cover usually around £300 for 3 years with £15 excess.
I arrange this through a 3rd party insurer not the dealership who charge £500 plus

I don’t think the neighbour would have the means to pay, if I take them to a small claims court.

I did purchase minor damage cover through the dealership when I got the car, however they don’t cover damage to bonnets or bumpers.

williamgriffin

Daz8855 said:

dcfc67 said:

Can you take some pics and then get in touch with a company like chips away who come to your house and do mthe work. They could possibly give you a quote by looking at the pics.

Then take your neighbour through the small claims court but only if you think they have the means to pay.


i have my car on PCP and always take out scratch and dent cover usually around £300 for 3 years with £15 excess.
I arrange this through a 3rd party insurer not the dealership who charge £500 plus

I don’t think the neighbour would have the means to pay, if I take them to a small claims court.

I did purchase minor damage cover through the dealership when I got the car, however they don’t cover damage to bonnets or bumpers.

If they can't pay then sadly the cost will be down to you, no point wasting any more time and energy on them. 

facade

chrisw said:

I'm not that sure they would be found negligent, it's something very hard to prove as it's not black and white. Had you said to them 'don't put that there, the forecast is for strong winds tonight and it could blow over and hit my car' then you could have a case. But they could just say they hadn't seen the forecast, they thought the weight would hold it down, your drive was less windy, etc. 

You might be applying common sense to somebody who doesn't have a lot of it, but that in itself doesn't make them negligent.

Odd isn't it that for negligence & liability, people are assumed to have the intellectual capacity of a goldfish-

They didn't realise that a tampoline/dustbin/gazebo could be blown in a forecast storm, that cleaning their car at 4pm on a freezing day would coat the pavement with a layer of ice, that leaving a pile of loose bricks on their drive would provide ammunition for "yoofs" to lob through windows....

But get behind the wheel of a car, and a driver is expected to have the reasoning ability of Einstein, and the skill of a top rally driver, or face a charge of careless driving, because their standard falls below that "expected of a safe & competent driver", when the observed standard of driving of what appears to me to be the majority is extremely low.

Seems the Law can have it both ways

ontheroad1970

facade said:

chrisw said:

I'm not that sure they would be found negligent, it's something very hard to prove as it's not black and white. Had you said to them 'don't put that there, the forecast is for strong winds tonight and it could blow over and hit my car' then you could have a case. But they could just say they hadn't seen the forecast, they thought the weight would hold it down, your drive was less windy, etc. 

You might be applying common sense to somebody who doesn't have a lot of it, but that in itself doesn't make them negligent.

Odd isn't it that for negligence & liability, people are assumed to have the intellectual capacity of a goldfish-

They didn't realise that a tampoline/dustbin/gazebo could be blown in a forecast storm, that cleaning their car at 4pm on a freezing day would coat the pavement with a layer of ice, that leaving a pile of loose bricks on their drive would provide ammunition for "yoofs" to lob through windows....

But get behind the wheel of a car, and a driver is expected to have the reasoning ability of Einstein, and the skill of a top rally driver, or face a charge of careless driving, because their standard falls below that "expected of a safe & competent driver", when the observed standard of driving of what appears to me to be the majority is extremely low.

Seems the Law can have it both ways

The Yoofs example is a poor one in  my view, as the person leaving the bricks there are not responsible for the actions of the said yoofs.  Others are direct consequences of thoughtlessness.  

facade

ontheroad1970 said:

The Yoofs example is a poor one in  my view, as the person leaving the bricks there are not responsible for the actions of the said yoofs.  Others are direct consequences of thoughtlessness.  

Again, the Law is two faced.

If you leave a box full of knives, a container of deadly acid, a crate of explosives etc on your drive, you would suddenly find that when the inevitable happens you would be negligent in some way, so what is the difference?

You don't need to be much higher up the scale than a goldfish to predict what will happen when a group of high spirited people walk past a tempting pile of loose bricks at 2 AM

EDIT: explosives is a bad example, there is likely a storage requirement in an explosives licence, so swap them for powerful fireworks

ontheroad1970

What kind of area do you live in where leaving bricks where they could be seen would automatically be a consideration?  No, it wouldn't be just anywhere.