Car accident - damage to property - help!!

[JustinP1]

daemon said:

Now the problem lies with the third party damage. Basically, theres about four fence posts out, a couple of edging moved and several shrubs damaged. I've a joiner friend whos going to sort that out and they are happy with that.

Whilst the man of the house is reasonably sympathetic the woman of the house is very much of the opinion that the shrubs must be replace like for like in terms of size. One full grown bush shes talking about will cost £250 to replace and shes expecting a full grown medium sized tree to be replaced that has had just one of its four major branches broken. I'm no tree surgeon but i'd have thought the branch could be sawn off but shes adamant the tree will die, therefore must be replaced.

First of all OP, two things:

1) If you crashed into my garden I would expect like for like too. That's only fair. They shouldn't be left worse off because of you.

2) If you were speaking last night, they were probably talking emotionally (RE the dying tree). Today will be a different story.

The thing is mature trees and shrubs are very expensive. Most people buy them when they are small. Only desperate and wealthy people buy them when they are big as the cost of them has to take into account years and years of storage, looking after and specialist transportation.

Then of course, you need someone to dig up the old stuff, get rid, and put in the new trees.

Realistically, such a bill for the trees, transport, making good and planting is going to run into four figures. That's the bad news.

The good news is that the broken tree probably won't die. You can saw off the branch and seal it and it'll be OK and in a few years they'll forget the branch was there.

The issue is that you need them to accept a deal. If they tot up the total costs of the trees, removal and planting, that's going to be a big bill. One that your insurance may even argue.

If it were me, I'd go down the route of you think the tree will not die, but accept it is damaged, and you think it is best to want closure ASAP, so you will offer them X. In a cheque in full and final settlement. Then, tell them, if that is not acceptable, then you'll have to pass it to your insurance company who will most likely argue about the values they've bought up.

As for what X is - you'll have to think of a figure that'll make them think "We'd rather pocket this and fix this ourselves if we want..."

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Vipers said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Like for like is like it says. You did the damage with your negligence. They are entitled to be back in the position they were before, as close as possible. That means the same plants in the same health in the same size and in the same shape/form. Not waiting 10 years for them to fill out again or butchered on the cheap. Don't like the cost? Let your insurance handle it.

So someone writes off your car you paid 17k 10 years ago, the insurers pay you 1k comp if your lucky, you write a shrub off which cost £5 about 10 years and that is £250 to replace, doesnt sound right.

Someone writes off your Mk1 Lotus Cortina you paid £900 in 1963, I think you'd expect about £35K in compensation. Market value. Trees and shrubs appreciate in value! It's not rocket surgery.

[streaky]

expensivegarms said:

daemon said:

One full grown bush shes talking about will cost £250 to replace and shes expecting a full grown medium sized tree to be replaced that has had just one of its four major branches broken. I'm no tree surgeon but i'd have thought the branch could be sawn off but shes adamant the tree will die, therefore must be replaced.

Depending on what tree it is, it is likely to be fine if you were to just saw the branch off! As long as the 'collar' (the growth ring around where the branch goes into the tree) isn't cut when you do it, or you don't leave the branch as a peg, it should be fine. Pictures would help to explain a bit better, but I'm not expecting you to take some just to put on here!

Regardless of the future health of the tree, there might be a loss of amenity caused by the damaged branch.

Were it my garden, fence, trees and shrubs, I'd be seeking like-for-like replacement by properly skilled craftsmen.

Streaky

[sugerbear]

How about taking round a large bunch of flowers, apologising to said lady, explain that you realise you cant afford afford to replace the shrubs like for like and could only afford x amount (your call on what you think is reasonable). Explain that you will put the claim through your insurance company as that seems the most sensible thing to do.

Give her your insurance details and name and address / telephone number and walk away.

[OllieC]

mr2aw11 said:

Insurance all the way imo...
Think of the potential st you're exposing yourself to.
Your mate fixes the fence, you slip him some beer money, mate's rates, whatever... She ain't happy with the work, sends you an invoice from a professional of her choosing.
You buy her the plants, she doesn't like them... Offer her cash for the plants - ain't enough...
Your insurance will already take a hit when you declare the accident, even if you don't claim.
Gotta weigh up loss of ncd but your insurance having the headache (which is what you pay for, after all) vs outlay and you having all the hassle now.

+1

remember if you avoid the insurance route you would be putting your faith in THE MENTAL !

[Grandad Gaz]

OllieC said:

+1

remember if you avoid the insurance route you would be putting your faith in THE MENTAL !

Also, what do you tell the insurance co when it comes to renew?

[AJS-]

LoonR1 said:

Why would there be any solicitors involved? It's clear where the fault lies and I've yet to hear of a tree claiming for personal injury.

Have you ever met a solicitor?

hornetrider said:

AJS- said:

insurance root

Hope you didn't miss the other one, stump up?

[Jasandjules]

AJS- said:

I think these sort of settlements are far better for all involved than long, laborious insurance claims that end up making more money for solicitors than anyone else, but they do require both sides to be reasonable.

I would also suggest that once she has agreed the terms (if she does) that you put it all in writing and agree that she has no more claims against you.......

[AJS-]

Jasandjules said:

AJS- said:

I think these sort of settlements are far better for all involved than long, laborious insurance claims that end up making more money for solicitors than anyone else, but they do require both sides to be reasonable.

I would also suggest that once she has agreed the terms (if she does) that you put it all in writing and agree that she has no more claims against you.......

Good point. Make sure this is a full and final settlement.

[LoonR1]

AJS- said:

Have you ever met a solicitor?

Yes, lots of them. I think at the least count I had 120 under exclusive contract, plus another couple of hundred dealing with other aspects of the insurance work I put their way on an adhoc basis.

I'm struggling to see why there would be any solicitor involvement, unless the insurer can't agree a setlement which would be highly unlikely for something as simple as this.

[AJS-]

LoonR1 said:

AJS- said:

Have you ever met a solicitor?

Yes, lots of them. I think at the least count I had 120 under exclusive contract, plus another couple of hundred dealing with other aspects of the insurance work I put their way on an adhoc basis.

I'm struggling to see why there would be any solicitor involvement, unless the insurer can't agree a setlement which would be highly unlikely for something as simple as this.

Well I'm going off the recent experience of a family member, so a small and quite possibly unrepresentative sample, but it seems like solicitors in cases like these seek to complicate as much as humanly possible to increase costs. With something as immeasurable as a particular bush at a given stage in development, I'm quite sure it's within the capability of the legal profession to argue the case for this woman to receive 5,000 for her bush, with legal costs of 20,000 for the solicitors, while another solicitor would argue that the bush is only worth 500 and she should be awarded that and no more, while he should be awarded 10,000 GBP in legal costs. However non secateur that sounds.

Puns intentional.

[Noger]

AJS- said:

I'm quite sure it's within the capability of the legal profession to argue the case for this woman to receive 5,000 for her bush,

They don't call them solicitors for nothing

[ferrariF50lover]

Should be noted also that you are bound to report the accident to the police within 24 hours (RTA s170). I'd bite the bullet, report the accident to the five-oh and your insurers and let them argue the toss about it. Yeah, your ins co will sting you for a few quid, but that's got to be worth it for the sake of all the hassle.

Simon.

[jazzyjeff]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's not rocket surgery.

[jazzyjeff]

AJS- said:

I'm quite sure it's within the capability of the legal profession to argue the case for this woman to receive 5,000 for her bush

Surely that would encompass an entirely different kind of legal action?

Edited by jazzyjeff on Thursday 14th June 10:31

[walm]

ferrariF50lover said:

Should be noted also that you are bound to report the accident to the police within 24 hours (RTA s170). I'd bite the bullet, report the accident to the five-oh and your insurers and let them argue the toss about it. Yeah, your ins co will sting you for a few quid, but that's got to be worth it for the sake of all the hassle.

Simon.

I think you are wrong.

RTA s170 requires you to provide ID details at the scene OR report to police within 24 hours, not BOTH unless there is an injury to a person (not just property).

IMHO if you settle with bush lady and fix your car at your own cost then there is NO NEED to report ANYTHING to insurers or Bibs.

That is the whole point of settling!!!!!!!!
So you can happily say "no, I haven't made any claims" when the insurers next ask.

Also from my experience all the Bibs care about is that no one is hurt, details are exchanged and that there is no damage to the road/street furniture.

[AJS-]

jazzyjeff said:

AJS- said:

I'm quite sure it's within the capability of the legal profession to argue the case for this woman to receive 5,000 for her bush

Surely that would encompass an entirely different kind of legal action?

And possibly an illegal one.

[jazzyjeff]

AJS- said:

jazzyjeff said:

AJS- said:

I'm quite sure it's within the capability of the legal profession to argue the case for this woman to receive 5,000 for her bush

Surely that would encompass an entirely different kind of legal action?

And possibly an illegal one.

[10 Pence Short]

walm said:

ferrariF50lover said:

Should be noted also that you are bound to report the accident to the police within 24 hours (RTA s170). I'd bite the bullet, report the accident to the five-oh and your insurers and let them argue the toss about it. Yeah, your ins co will sting you for a few quid, but that's got to be worth it for the sake of all the hassle.

Simon.

I think you are wrong.

RTA s170 requires you to provide ID details at the scene OR report to police within 24 hours, not BOTH unless there is an injury to a person (not just property).

IMHO if you settle with bush lady and fix your car at your own cost then there is NO NEED to report ANYTHING to insurers or Bibs.

That is the whole point of settling!!!!!!!!
So you can happily say "no, I haven't made any claims" when the insurers next ask.

Also from my experience all the Bibs care about is that no one is hurt, details are exchanged and that there is no damage to the road/street furniture.

Unless the 'bush lady' and the OP can reach agreement and a binding document signed limiting liability, I would be putting this in front of my insurer. Even if you do not claim on your insurance, you are still normally asked if you have been involved in any accidents or claims, typically within a 3 or 5 year period. It is still material information your insurer is entitled to know about when considering your risk level, irrespective of whether you claimed or not. If that weren't the case, those able to afford to fix their own and others vehicles without insurance, and had done so, would effectively pervert the ability of an insurer in assessing their risk in providing cover. Allowing the undermining of insurers' risk assessments in this way would not make commercial sense.

As far as I can see, the OP has little right to complain if the bush woman is being fussy, as I'm sure she didn't ask for him to smash into her garden and is entitled to be put back into the position she enjoyed before it happened.

[Devil2575]

Vipers said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Like for like is like it says. You did the damage with your negligence. They are entitled to be back in the position they were before, as close as possible. That means the same plants in the same health in the same size and in the same shape/form. Not waiting 10 years for them to fill out again or butchered on the cheap. Don't like the cost? Let your insurance handle it.

So someone writes off your car you paid 17k 10 years ago, the insurers pay you 1k comp if your lucky, you write a shrub off which cost £5 about 10 years and that is £250 to replace, doesnt sound right.

You buy an E30 BMW M3 10 years ago for £10k. Values have risen over the last 10 years and now an equivalent car will cost £20k. Wouldn't you expect the insurer to pay out £20k?