Van driver bumped into front garden wall.

Abbas.m88

Hi Everyone,

Insured van driver bumped into front garden wall. caused some damage in which he admitted full liability. Police also attended the scene. The third party insurance representatives advised to get 2 quotes for the works. 

Sent them 2 quotes from 2 different building companies (both were for demolition and rebuild) as 1 company stated that a full rebuild was recommended as the wall was unsafe. TP insurance have advised that we are only entitled to costs towards the repair of the area, and that the wall was in poor condition previous to the accident. they have offered £1200 for settlement which we are not willing to accept!

where do I stand in this?

Thanks in advance!

Brie

Negotiate.  Getting a third quote that states again that a rebuild is the only way to make it safe.  Mention you're sure the company doesn't want to be responsible for picking up costs if someone is injured if the wall has been rebuilt improperly.  When you get to the point where the offer is within a reasonable range of the costs decide whether you will accept.  Rather than get a ££ offer I wonder if it's better to get a % one.  What if in the rebuild additional costs are accrued?  Does the cost for repair include putting right any damage to the garden as well?  It might be ok now but it might need some work if brickies are stomping all over it.

Aretnap

The driver's liability, and therefore his insurer's liability, is on what's called an indemnity basis, which means that they only have to pay the actual value of the property as it was. For moveable property like a car or a bicycle that means they only have to pay, at most, the second hand value of the property, not the price of replacing it with a brand new equivalent.

You obviously can't get a second hand wall off eBay, but a similar principle holds. If you had an old wall that was in poor condition the third party insurer doesn't have to pay the full cost of replacing it with a brand new wall. They are entitled to make a deduction to reflect the age and condition of the wall as it was before the accident happened. You can argue about exactly what sort of deduction is fair, but you can't get away from the fact that a deduction of some sort is merited.

The alternative would be to make a claim on your own home insurance instead. Your rights then are determined by the terms of your policy, not by liability law, and will likely include a large element of new for old cover.

rigolith

How do you judge the remaining value of a wall? With minimal maintenance should last indefinitely, hundreds of years at least.

They won't know what condition it was in before. Sounds like they are trying it on.

Aretnap

rigolith said:

How do you judge the remaining value of a wall? With minimal maintenance should last indefinitely, hundreds of years at least.

They won't know what condition it was in before. Sounds like they are trying it on.

It is of course easy to determine what condition it was in beforehand - you look at the parts of the wall which haven't been damaged, or you look at the condition of the bricks and mortar in the damaged parts. Mortar which has been crumbling over many years does not look like mortar which has only been recently broken. Not everything is trying it on just because you don't like the outcome.

There is of course scope for negotiation over the appropriate deduction as it's not as simple as an old car, which has a well defined second-hand value. However ultimately the OP has relatively few rights against a third party insurer. Sooner or later the insurer will say "that's our final offer, take it or leave it" at which point the OP will have the choice of accepting the offer or starting a court claim.

Whereas if the OP makes the claim through their own home insurance instead, if they don't like the way the insurer handles the claim they can use the insurers complaints process, and if they're still not satisfied complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service which is free, as well as simpler and more consumer-focussed than the courts. Which is another arguement for claiming through home insurance.