neighbours!

ThisIsWeird

LightFlare said:

Does it matter (for purposes of replacement) if they should or should not have been there - wife hit a stationary object. (I assume the pot wasn’t moving)

I have seen it suggested that, if asked, the pot/rock placer should claim, "Purely decorative, guv'". And def not, "So the bar steward will wreck his car if he comes on to my land...".
I think the neighb would struggle to make a successful claim here. An adjudicator would surely ask, "You knew it was a tight exit, and you knew there was a reasonable chance of a pot being damaged as a result. So, why the hell?! We're you  merely being petty?"

TELLIT01

LightFlare said:

Does it matter (for purposes of replacement) if they should or should not have been there - wife hit a stationary object. (I assume the pot wasn’t moving)

Yes it does matter.  If the neighbour had put the pot on the OPs property and it was damaged, it's their own fault.

LightFlare

Is that 100% true though.

If you hit a stationary vehicle whilst driving it matters not whether it should or should t have been where it was - it will always be the moving vehicle drivers fault

If I decide to park my car on my neighbours land and they damage it - it’s still their fault. (Legally speaking). 

YoungBlueEyes

I would replace the pot like-for-like, I wouldn’t be giving them £180. No way Pedro. 

Then I’d put on my best sweetness+light smile, take round the new pot, and say “sorry about that, neighbour. But quit budging them further and further out cos we aren't replacing any more”