Tweet
Hi
So our neighbour decided to take us to small claims court over a storm which took off our carport roof.
I am wondering what everyones thoughts will be on whether we will win?
In January 2018 Storm Eleanor happened and in the morning my wife (7.45am) noticed it was next to someones car (her term was resting on it), he came round later that day as he had seen the roof in the street at 6am before going fishing so when his wife told him the car had been hit, he knew it must have been our roof.
My partner was apologetic as anyone would be but he wanted us to pay for damages, and said he'd get a quote. He got weird when my partner he should go through his insurance and insisted on getting a quote for us to pay, she was deliberately vague but was intimidated as heavily pregnant and son trying to run out of house so didn't say she wouldn't and then called me.
I phoned my insurers who said he would need to claim through his insurers, so I gave him my insurance details that evening. A few days later he provided a quote, for £6.5k!! from his car leasing company (who also do repairs), I looked at quote and involved respraying entire car and removing the panels. I immediately went round to see his car as I was not bothered, as I hadn't seen any damage and for keeping up good relations was prepared to pay a few quid out of my own pocket. I could not see any damage, except maybe one scratch although could have been a bit of dirt! It makes no sense!!
His car is only one year old, and assuming its a lease hire for a number of years and when damaged he went to his leasing company and they've stung him but hes not a stupid guy, and is into his cars A LOT and regularly outside doing work on his own car and friends with mechanics etc including rebuilding classic cars.
Anyway I told him to go through his insurers who would contact mine to determine liability, but he refused and threatened court, so I told my insurer who then opened up a claim which after reviewing evidence denied liability (they told me he got very angry with them). He provided "evidence" which included a letter from old owner of our property who said she sold us house when roof was in need of repair (I counter acted this with our home survey which said roof was in good condition), he then provided satellite photos of house where a panel came of in 2014 (I didn't drive / own property then but my wife did with her brother) and we was unaware it had come off then but was told that panel came off and her brother just took it down tip and did no more. In 2015 another panel came off and I was in process of buying house from her brother (transfer of equity) so when it happened, I got my dad round to diamante the panel, and check the final 2 panels. He screwed in some wood batons and checked it through, from 2015 to 2018 no further damage (although he also has a letter from a friend who says he saw roof panel flapping regularly - this is not true! in 2015 prior to dad coming round, a panel flapped for less than 2 hours and we fixed it there and then). He also has pictures to show roof was not built correctly (I have no idea as car port roof was from old owners, but I never felt it was in a bad condition from 2015 onward and even built a play area adjacent to the roof for my 2 year old son). My wife's brother believes he helped build the original roof with old owner as they were friends, I checked their Facebook and it alludes the fact he helped build it but doesn't say completely so cant use as evidence.
So he does have some evidence, although half of it is lies, I also have evidence of 100kph winds, evidence of us keeping property in good condition by replacing all garage doors, new fencing etc and the fact I didn't think any damage would occur by having new car myself parked on drive, kids play area next to roof etc so who do you think will win?
My insurers are providing legal counsel and a solicitor from theirs will be with me as they have a vested interest (they did say to take them to court but neighbour insisted it would be me who would be named), they've told me to focus on liability, but whilst I believe completely the roof came down purely because of storm and I couldn't have predicted it (we've had multiple storms from 2015 onward with no damage) I really feel the key question is how did he get a quote of 6.5k? why did he refuse to go through his insurers (I think because he has a off street parking but has two cars and if he said damage occurred overnight whilst parked on road he would invalidate?) and if quote of 6.5k is genuine (I really believe it isn't and he has a friend who works there as he will now be receiving 6.5k cash if he wins!), then how can the roof be liable for all sides of car and roof , and not have touched another car on street? surely some of that "damage" would be general wear and tear? he regularly parks with tyres on kerb etc? And Also if he saw roof at 6 am / or it was in such a bad state of repair he knew it would cause damage and didn't notify us, then shouldn't he be liable himself?
Sorry for long winded rant I am just concerned I will lose (even if insurance pays out on my behalf its the principle and the fact I'm being explicitly targeted by him).
So our neighbour decided to take us to small claims court over a storm which took off our carport roof.
I am wondering what everyones thoughts will be on whether we will win?
In January 2018 Storm Eleanor happened and in the morning my wife (7.45am) noticed it was next to someones car (her term was resting on it), he came round later that day as he had seen the roof in the street at 6am before going fishing so when his wife told him the car had been hit, he knew it must have been our roof.
My partner was apologetic as anyone would be but he wanted us to pay for damages, and said he'd get a quote. He got weird when my partner he should go through his insurance and insisted on getting a quote for us to pay, she was deliberately vague but was intimidated as heavily pregnant and son trying to run out of house so didn't say she wouldn't and then called me.
I phoned my insurers who said he would need to claim through his insurers, so I gave him my insurance details that evening. A few days later he provided a quote, for £6.5k!! from his car leasing company (who also do repairs), I looked at quote and involved respraying entire car and removing the panels. I immediately went round to see his car as I was not bothered, as I hadn't seen any damage and for keeping up good relations was prepared to pay a few quid out of my own pocket. I could not see any damage, except maybe one scratch although could have been a bit of dirt! It makes no sense!!
His car is only one year old, and assuming its a lease hire for a number of years and when damaged he went to his leasing company and they've stung him but hes not a stupid guy, and is into his cars A LOT and regularly outside doing work on his own car and friends with mechanics etc including rebuilding classic cars.
Anyway I told him to go through his insurers who would contact mine to determine liability, but he refused and threatened court, so I told my insurer who then opened up a claim which after reviewing evidence denied liability (they told me he got very angry with them). He provided "evidence" which included a letter from old owner of our property who said she sold us house when roof was in need of repair (I counter acted this with our home survey which said roof was in good condition), he then provided satellite photos of house where a panel came of in 2014 (I didn't drive / own property then but my wife did with her brother) and we was unaware it had come off then but was told that panel came off and her brother just took it down tip and did no more. In 2015 another panel came off and I was in process of buying house from her brother (transfer of equity) so when it happened, I got my dad round to diamante the panel, and check the final 2 panels. He screwed in some wood batons and checked it through, from 2015 to 2018 no further damage (although he also has a letter from a friend who says he saw roof panel flapping regularly - this is not true! in 2015 prior to dad coming round, a panel flapped for less than 2 hours and we fixed it there and then). He also has pictures to show roof was not built correctly (I have no idea as car port roof was from old owners, but I never felt it was in a bad condition from 2015 onward and even built a play area adjacent to the roof for my 2 year old son). My wife's brother believes he helped build the original roof with old owner as they were friends, I checked their Facebook and it alludes the fact he helped build it but doesn't say completely so cant use as evidence.
So he does have some evidence, although half of it is lies, I also have evidence of 100kph winds, evidence of us keeping property in good condition by replacing all garage doors, new fencing etc and the fact I didn't think any damage would occur by having new car myself parked on drive, kids play area next to roof etc so who do you think will win?
My insurers are providing legal counsel and a solicitor from theirs will be with me as they have a vested interest (they did say to take them to court but neighbour insisted it would be me who would be named), they've told me to focus on liability, but whilst I believe completely the roof came down purely because of storm and I couldn't have predicted it (we've had multiple storms from 2015 onward with no damage) I really feel the key question is how did he get a quote of 6.5k? why did he refuse to go through his insurers (I think because he has a off street parking but has two cars and if he said damage occurred overnight whilst parked on road he would invalidate?) and if quote of 6.5k is genuine (I really believe it isn't and he has a friend who works there as he will now be receiving 6.5k cash if he wins!), then how can the roof be liable for all sides of car and roof , and not have touched another car on street? surely some of that "damage" would be general wear and tear? he regularly parks with tyres on kerb etc? And Also if he saw roof at 6 am / or it was in such a bad state of repair he knew it would cause damage and didn't notify us, then shouldn't he be liable himself?
Sorry for long winded rant I am just concerned I will lose (even if insurance pays out on my behalf its the principle and the fact I'm being explicitly targeted by him).
Comment