Damage to static caravan by snowplough - operator denies responsibility

caravanowner

We own a static caravan on a privately operated park in Northumberland. In January we received notification from the park operators that our caravan had been damaged by a snowplough that had been clearing the road around the park: there's a large gash in the facing under the roof plus damage to a window. The park operators initially told us that they would take responsibility for putting the damage right, but have now changed their tune and told us that we must claim on our insurance. The snowplough was under contract to the County Council and had been sent to clear the public road as far as the caravan site. The Council have made it clear that they did NOT ask the operator to clear the internal road on the site, which is on private land. The park operators claim not to have any knowledge of who asked the snowplough operator to clear the internal road (though we don't believe them). The Council have given us the snowplough operator's details and we have contacted him; he admits to having been on the park at the invitation of someone on the park, but denies doing any damage to the caravan. We have video evidence of the plough skidding all over the park, but none of the actual incident that caused the damage to our caravan, although we have photos of the skid marks caused; and several witnesses have mentioned damage to other parts of the property e.g. paving stones. The snowplough operator has not yet responded to a threat of legal action by email. I think our next step is to send a registered post letter of formal notice before action giving the operator 14 days to reply. 
We really don't see why we should claim on our insurance and risk an increase in premium when the incident wasn't our fault. The park operators state that their insurance doesn't cover the damage because (they say...) the snowplough was not invited onto the site by them. 
My question is: will this case be considered by the small claims court? We had no contract with the snowplough operator, and cannot find out who did (if anyone: it's highly unlikely that he did this out of the goodness of his heart, i.e. without being given a backhander..) so this doesn't really fit under 'consumer rights'. We wondered about contacting the police, but this wasn't criminal damage. All advice welcomed - thank you in advance.

Mark_d

The answer is yes.  The small claims court deals with civil cases where an amount of money is being claimed.  It is not restricted to consumer rights.

QrizB

You won't like this, but I think you should claim on your insurance and let them decide whether to pursue a third party or not.

This is why you have insurance.

born_again

caravanowner said:

We own a static caravan on a privately operated park in Northumberland. In January we received notification from the park operators that our caravan had been damaged by a snowplough that had been clearing the road around the park: there's a large gash in the facing under the roof plus damage to a window. The park operators initially told us that they would take responsibility for putting the damage right, but have now changed their tune and told us that we must claim on our insurance. The snowplough was under contract to the County Council and had been sent to clear the public road as far as the caravan site. The Council have made it clear that they did NOT ask the operator to clear the internal road on the site, which is on private land. The park operators claim not to have any knowledge of who asked the snowplough operator to clear the internal road (though we don't believe them). The Council have given us the snowplough operator's details and we have contacted him; he admits to having been on the park at the invitation of someone on the park, but denies doing any damage to the caravan. We have video evidence of the plough skidding all over the park, but none of the actual incident that caused the damage to our caravan, although we have photos of the skid marks caused; and several witnesses have mentioned damage to other parts of the property e.g. paving stones. The snowplough operator has not yet responded to a threat of legal action by email. I think our next step is to send a registered post letter of formal notice before action giving the operator 14 days to reply. 
We really don't see why we should claim on our insurance and risk an increase in premium when the incident wasn't our fault. The park operators state that their insurance doesn't cover the damage because (they say...) the snowplough was not invited onto the site by them. 
My question is: will this case be considered by the small claims court? We had no contract with the snowplough operator, and cannot find out who did (if anyone: it's highly unlikely that he did this out of the goodness of his heart, i.e. without being given a backhander..) so this doesn't really fit under 'consumer rights'. We wondered about contacting the police, but this wasn't criminal damage. All advice welcomed - thank you in advance.

If you can not find out who did the damage who are you going to take to court? 

Agree with the above post. This is what insurance is for & ins co will decide if they want to claim from any of the other parties.

user1977

born_again said:

caravanowner said:

We own a static caravan on a privately operated park in Northumberland. In January we received notification from the park operators that our caravan had been damaged by a snowplough that had been clearing the road around the park: there's a large gash in the facing under the roof plus damage to a window. The park operators initially told us that they would take responsibility for putting the damage right, but have now changed their tune and told us that we must claim on our insurance. The snowplough was under contract to the County Council and had been sent to clear the public road as far as the caravan site. The Council have made it clear that they did NOT ask the operator to clear the internal road on the site, which is on private land. The park operators claim not to have any knowledge of who asked the snowplough operator to clear the internal road (though we don't believe them). The Council have given us the snowplough operator's details and we have contacted him; he admits to having been on the park at the invitation of someone on the park, but denies doing any damage to the caravan. We have video evidence of the plough skidding all over the park, but none of the actual incident that caused the damage to our caravan, although we have photos of the skid marks caused; and several witnesses have mentioned damage to other parts of the property e.g. paving stones. The snowplough operator has not yet responded to a threat of legal action by email. I think our next step is to send a registered post letter of formal notice before action giving the operator 14 days to reply. 
We really don't see why we should claim on our insurance and risk an increase in premium when the incident wasn't our fault. The park operators state that their insurance doesn't cover the damage because (they say...) the snowplough was not invited onto the site by them. 
My question is: will this case be considered by the small claims court? We had no contract with the snowplough operator, and cannot find out who did (if anyone: it's highly unlikely that he did this out of the goodness of his heart, i.e. without being given a backhander..) so this doesn't really fit under 'consumer rights'. We wondered about contacting the police, but this wasn't criminal damage. All advice welcomed - thank you in advance.

If you can not find out who did the damage who are you going to take to court? 

I think they know who the snowplough operator was (and it's them who they should be pursuing, at least in the first instance), I don't think it's relevant who (if anybody) they were contracted to at the time

Aylesbury_Duck

I agree with others.  You perhaps have an obligation to tell your insurer in any case - if it's like buildings cover, you'd be expected to tell the insurer if there's a significant incident damaging the insured property - so you may as well start the claim process.  Let them decide if they want to limit their losses by pursuing the guilty party.

Grumpy_chap

QrizB said:

I think you should claim on your insurance and let them decide whether to pursue a third party or not.

This^^^^^^

Is this a different snowplough to the one in a thread last month?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81351840

ThumbRemote

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You perhaps have an obligation to tell your insurer in any case - if it's like buildings cover, you'd be expected to tell the insurer if there's a significant incident damaging the insured property - so you may as well start the claim process.  Let them decide if they want to limit their losses by pursuing the guilty party.

Would you? I'm not aware of any term in my policy (now, or ever) that requires this, unless it was part of an actual claim. 

user1977

ThumbRemote said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

I agree with others.  You perhaps have an obligation to tell your insurer in any case - if it's like buildings cover, you'd be expected to tell the insurer if there's a significant incident damaging the insured property - so you may as well start the claim process.  Let them decide if they want to limit their losses by pursuing the guilty party.

Would you? I'm not aware of any term in my policy (now, or ever) that requires this, unless it was part of an actual claim. 

It's part of the proposal form when you renew (often misinterpreted as only telling them about actual claims).

GDB2222

Insurance policies only cover insured perils. I suggest that the op checks his policy carefully to see whether damage caused by vehicles is covered.  In any case, there will be a possibly significant deduction from any claim, as normally the first few hundred pounds of each claim is not insured. 

I’d have thought that the snow plough operator’s insurance would cover this damage without too much quibbling, as there seems to be reasonable evidence. 

sheramber

GDB2222 said:

Insurance policies only cover insured perils. I suggest that the op checks his policy carefully to see whether damage caused by vehicles is covered.  In any case, there will be a possibly significant deduction from any claim, as normally the first few hundred pounds of each claim is not insured. 

I’d have thought that the snow plough operator’s insurance would cover this damage without too much quibbling, as there seems to be reasonable evidence. 

Apparently the snowplough operating was operating outwith his instructions, as the park road is not a public road.

Hence the council’s insurance doesn’t cover  the incident.