Neighbour from HELL

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

Thanks des8.
There is no insurance cover so no legal assistance and we will have to defend this. I have emailed pics of the papers to Kati so hopefully they will be available soon for you to view.
Could we use this case as an opportunity to counter claim and get an ASBO?

[Kati]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

docs:

[Kati]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

and:

- - - Updated - - -
[MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION] xx

[des8]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

Hi
Sorry. but am having trouble reading the Particulars of claim.
Could you either resend them larger or type & post them up.
The rest of the form I can make out (hyd yn oed y Gymraeg!)

Was your brother given copies of the CCTV and photos?

Do complete and return the parts of the form necessary to dispute the claim (and keep a copy for yourself)

Your brother has no cause to counterclaim in this court (unless he is blaming the neighbour for damaging his trampoline!).

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

des8, Kati has now posted up the court papers and I've been busy today in work:tinysmile_twink_t2:, this is a draft defense of the case what are your thoughts?

Whilst it is unfortunate that damage has occurred to the Claimant’s vehicle and I fully sympathize with her situation I do not accept any responsibility for the damage to the vehicle for the following reasons: -
1) The trampoline was secured to the ground contrary to the Claimant’s statement.
8x ‘U’ shaped ground pegs as supplied by the manufacturer were installed to the legs of the trampoline, this was further supplemented by the use of bungee cord wrapped around the legs and spiked into the ground using tent pegs.
The trampoline had been placed in the front garden for a number of years, the garden is level contrary to the Claimant’s statement and is the most logical place for its siting as I have a sloping rear garden.2) The trampoline was well used by my children, as a safety precaution the children were required to remove the side netting after use each day and I periodically checked the security of the ground anchors.
3) As stated in 2) above the trampoline had been in place for a number of years and we had never experienced any problems with the trampoline moving.
4) In the three months preceding the incident the UK experienced 8 storms:

1. Abigail on November 12 & 13 2015 with winds of 7-21mph and gusts up to 45mph
2. Barney on November 17 & 18 2015 with winds of 7-28mph and gusts up to 46mph
3. Clodagh on November 29 2015 with winds of 17-30mph and gusts up to 55mph
4. Desmond on December 5 & 6 2015 with winds of 3-25mph and gusts up to 49mph
5. Eva on December 24 2015 with winds of 17-26mph and gusts up to 49mph
6. Frank on December 30 2015 with winds of 11-32mph and gusts up to 53mph
7. Gertrude on January 29 2016 with winds of 23-30mph and gusts up to 50mph
8. Henry on February 1 & 2 2016 with winds of 22-28mph and gusts up to 49mph

5) Immediately prior to the alleged incident the weather was changeable with periods of sun and cloud, my children were in and out of the house using the trampoline during the sunny periods. The wind conditions on the 7^th February were Moderate to a Fresh Breeze with speeds recorded between 17-26mph and gusts up to 47mph. At the time of the incident which was shortly before 2pm the wind speed was 18-20mph which is a Fresh Breeze and gusts up to 32mph. I had no concerns as to the safety of the trampoline on the 7^th February and certainly no indication that the trampoline may have worked loose.
6) I have provided a copy of the Pontypool weather records for the dates of all the above storms and the day of the incident.
7) I did not physically move the trampoline into its final resting position. I can only assume that a natural occurrence such as a freak gust of wind has managed to lift the trampoline from its ground anchors and moved it. This is an event which could not have been prevented by any amount of foresight, planning or care on my part and I have taken all reasonable and realistic precautions to guard against the trampoline moving.

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

I will call back to my brothers house on my way home from work and take the paperwork away to copy properly, sorry I didn't realize the photo's were so bad until I'd returned home.
No evidence has been provided yet, so should we point this out when returning the forms?
I will start completing the forms for him and will post up the Particulars later then wait on your post for submitting the forms.

Thanks des8.

[Kati]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

I will call back to my brothers house on my way home from work and take the paperwork away to copy properly, sorry I didn't realize the photo's were so bad until I'd returned home.
No evidence has been provided yet, so should we point this out when returning the forms?
I will start completing the forms for him and will post up the Particulars later then wait on your post for submitting the forms.

Thanks des8.

a close up of the particulars would do Nogger xx

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

There's not a lot so quicker to type it:-

"Particulars of Claim
In Oct 2015 I emailed the council, concerned about a tenant our neighbour who had put up a trampoline in the front garden, not only was it an eyesore we thought it was a danger, the council sent their safety officer, Gaynor hawkins, an email back to me said therewas no reason why it could not stay,although it was not tied down.on 5th feb our fears came true, when the trampoline left his gardenand damaged our car badley. a quote said repairs would cost £1800, plus to rent a car for work £200. I made a claim againest the council,which they declined.we have cctv of the incident,and photo's.we believe that thiswas their fault.has they didn't inform the tenant to tie down. I sent them copies of the cctv,plus photo's,and the email's to and fro,so we now go to court,the damage has to be paid."

Ok, now that I've typed that up verbatim, I see a few issues with it:-
1) their grammar is awful!
2) the incident was on 7th Feb not 5th as stated.
3) they state they believe it was the council's fault not my brothers.
4) they claim to have issued copies of cctv, photos and emails but hey have not been sent to my brother.

Feedback and advice on how to proceed appreciated.

[des8]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

First of all fill in that form that you are disputing the whole of the claim.

I'm a bit tied up over the next couple of days but will draft up a defence for you by the weekend.
Looking at the claim, if it wasn't so distressing for your brother, it would be laughable.

Before they can hold your brother liable, they have to prove he was negligent (which isn't a done deal ) but they are actually holding the council liable (we believe that this was their fault)

Just one point: did Gaynor Hawkins, or anyone from the council visit, contact or give any advice about the trampoline whatsoever to your brother or any member of his family?

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

Gaynor did visit him and advised my brother that there was a complaint about the trampoline being an eyesore but stated verbally that everything was fine as it is.

There are emails used by the housing association as evidence showing that there was no report of concern over safety only aesthetics. There are also photos used by the claimant in the original case that clearly show the trampoline was secured. None of this has been sent to my brother.

I've just picked up on this, the original case was against the housing association, the claimant now states they hold the council responsible, the council is not the housing association or my brother so who are they actually trying to sue?

My brothers partner has today contacted both the housing association and council to start an investigation into ASB. Whilst talking to the housing association, she asked if they would provide copies of all the evidence used, they declined but stated that the court has everything and we can request it from the court.

[des8]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

When the trampoline moved you said it was wrapped around a fence.
Did the trampoline leave the garden, or did it lodge against the fence which remained firm or what?

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

I've seen some photos and to be honest from what I see, it hooked on to the neighbours gate/fence post and went over the top of fence. It looks to me from the angle the photo was taken that the trampoline is sat over the footpath and held up by the gate post. The damage could very well have been done by the trampoline!

[des8]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

I've seen some photos and to be honest from what I see, it hooked on to the neighbours gate/fence post and went over the top of fence. It looks to me from the angle the photo was taken that the trampoline is sat over the footpath and held up by the gate post. The damage could very well have been done by the trampoline!

Bit contradictory to post 7 "There wasn't damage to the car at the time, the trampoline stopped about 3 feet away from it. The neighbour took some photographs at the time and used 2 at angles which show it wrapped up in fence but you can't see if it was touching the car. They then have photos of a dent in the car taken 2 months later. All photos have date stamps on them."

In post 23 it was stated that your brother had not received cctv/ photos etc.
In post 7 it was stated:The neighbour took some photographs at the time and used 2 at angles which show it wrapped up in fence but you can't see if it was touching the car.
Today you refer to seeing photos that suggest the trampoline could have damaged the car.

Please don't go into court with such confusing and possibly contradictory statements!

However, even if the trampoline did damage the car, the claimant has to show your brother has been negligent.

I've drafted a defence for you, but parts such as dates need completing, and do check it is correct.
EG para 5 is a bit of a guess. and 9 might now be doubtful
This is important because your brother has to complete the statement of truth.

When typing up the statement use font size 12 with line spacing 1.5, and good margins either side.


IN THE COUNTYCOURT AT BLACKWOOD CASE No. XYZ123


BETWEEN NEIGHBOUR FROM HELL CLAIMANT
AND BROTHER DEFENDANT


DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim

or at all. Save where otherwise admitted, each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is

denied.

2. The Defendant admits a trampoline was erected in his garden in 20??,

3 The Defendant asserts that in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions it was properly

installed with 8 X “U” shaped ground pegs supplied by the manufacturer.

4.The Defendant asserts that additional restraint was supplied by the use of bungee ropes fixed

round the trampoline legs and to tent pegs driven into the ground.,together with additional

restraints

5.The Defendant asserts the security of the ground anchors of the trampoline was regularly

inspected, the last inspection being on or about 04 February 2016, being a check on its security

following the high winds of storm “Henry”

6. The Defendant has no knowledge of the Claimant’s correspondence with Caerphilly Borough

County Council,

7. The Defendant was visited on dd/mm/yy by Gaynor Hawkins of Caerphilly Borough County

Council who advised the trampoline had been reported as an eyesore, but stated it was satisfactory.

8. She made no written or verbal recommendations

9. The Defendant denies that the trampoline “left his garden” on 05 February 2016 .

10. The Defendant admits that on 07 February 2016 the trampoline uprooted.

11. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that firstly the Defendants trampoline caused damage to the Claimant's car and that secondly the Defendant is liable through

negligence for that damage.

12. The Defendant denies all knowledge of the Claimants’s repair costs.

13. The Defendant denies all knowledge of the Claimant’s claim against Caerphilly Borough

County Council.

14.The Claimant states “.we believe that this (damageto claimant’s vehicle) was their

(Caerphilly BoroughCountyCouncil.)fault.hasthey didn't inform the tenant to tie down."(sic)

15. The defendant asserts that if the Claimant’s belief as stated in the foregoing paragraph is true,

then the Claimant should be proceeding against the said council

16.The Defendant has not received any “copies of CCTV, Photos and emails” which the Claimant states have been sent to him

17. It is denied that the claimant is entitled to the amounts claimed or any interest on such amounts.


Statement of Truth
I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true


Brother’s signature


Dated DD Month 2017

[NoggerUK]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

Thanks for that des8,.

I don't believe there's anything contradictory in my posts however, I gave my opinion in my last post based on the photos I've seen although those photos do not show the trampoline in contact with the car. The previous posts refer to my brother's account of what happened.

Quick question, should we add something about the claimant not providing proof of any attempt to minimise losses?

[des8]

Re: Neighbour from HELL

deleted double post