How do you go about sueing a neighbour?

[fergus]

We live in a first floor flat in London, and the ground floor has done a considerable amount of building work. This has involved removing 2 load bearing walls and also two chimney breasts. All of this is "notifiable Work" under Building Regulations.

He does not have:
1) planning permission
2) Building control sign off
3) did not sign a party wall agreement (and went ahead with the work even though I insisted he sign one)
4) freeholder has not provided consent. He has also breached other covenants in the lease....

The building work has caused several cracks in our flat (10 in one room alone). His removal of the chimney breast on a gable end wall, could have placed the entire structure of the house in danger, yet his builders suggested "that they only (acro) prop internal chimney breasts". They were going to leave the chimney unsupported internally over the weekend, until I managed to force the local building control surveyor to come round and supervise the support works. Oh, whilst they were knocking the chimney out from beneath us, our fireplace hearth slipped through their ceiling....

How do I go about suing the neighbour for the costs of repairing all the damage caused, and also claiming damages for noise, hassle, etc? Would a small claims court be sufficient, or should I engage a solicitor? If the neighbour is found to be at fault, will he pick up my legal costs, or is that are the discretion of the person hearing the case?

PM me with details if you'd prefer not to post.

thanks in advance

[condor]

I'd suggest contacting your buildings insurance company and let them deal with it.

[fergus]

condor said:

I'd suggest contacting your buildings insurance company and let them deal with it.

Agreed. Although that only (hopefully) fixes the damage to the flat. I'd heard in these instances the building ins company will pursue the builders. I'm guessing that as they are fairly shoddy in their building practices, they won't have insurance. NB we were not consulted prior to any of the building work beginning. We also have a 3 month old daughter in the flat who is woken very early every day with sledgehammers. Hence the desire to sue the neighbour.

[condor]

I think they deal with whatever is/was the cause of the damage as well. Check your cover.

Edited by condor on Sunday 20th February 23:16

[davepoth]

+1 for buildings insurance. I take it you've already informed the council? Having their opinion on things makes your case that much stronger.

[fergus]

davepoth said:

+1 for buildings insurance. I take it you've already informed the council? Having their opinion on things makes your case that much stronger.

Twice, although the building control dept did't seem overly concerned until the HSE got involved.

thks

[Paul Drawmer]

o/p. have you contacted the freeholder?

[Sleepers]

Had similar in the past, straight to good solicitor with home insurance legal cover in hand. Don't pi55 around trying to 'chat' the nicey nicey way, you won't get anywhere. Council won't give a st! Take pics and keep a diary too...

[Mr GrimNasty]

You should have got an injunction when they refused to follow the PWA procedure. If the work is incomplete, it may still be worth a shot. But you can't apply the Act retrospectively. But you can still sue, and failure to follow the PWA will strenghten your claim.

You can't mess about, as said, check if you have any usable legal cover anywhere, you need to engage specialist PWA professional surveyors/litigators ASAP.

[neilsie]

also, the PWA (i think) mentions that the hours of working should also not be anti-social. (at least it was mentioned during some works i was previously affected by)

It is a breach of statutory duty not to serve a notice in circumstances where The Act clearly applies.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Sadly there is no enforcement/criminal offence enshrined in the Act (accept if an adjoining owner refuses access under certain circumstances).

It is all down to the adjoining owner to seek redress through the courts at their own expense (initially).

That's why so many people ignore it and stick 2 fingers up.

[mk1fan]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Sadly there is no enforcement/criminal offence enshrined in the Act (accept if an adjoining owner refuses access under certain circumstances).

True, but in a civil case for damages the defendant is deemed guilty and it is down to them to prove that they are inocent.*

You need to contact the Freeholder and jointly persue the matter. The likelyhood is that part of the property demised to you is damaged along with part of the property that remaind the Freeholder's property.

I'm in S London if you want some informal advice. ETA; the OP not the quotee!

• refering purely to works to a party structure where notice was required, not served and damage likely to be associated with the works has occured. Which, if the OPs statements are true, appears to tbe the case.

Edited by mk1fan on Monday 21st February 20:12

[Mr GrimNasty]

mk1fan said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

Sadly there is no enforcement/criminal offence enshrined in the Act (accept if an adjoining owner refuses access under certain circumstances).

True, but in a civil case for damages the defendant is deemed guilty and it is down to them to prove that they are inocent.*

Edited by mk1fan on Monday 21st February 20:12

Yes, thanks for more or less re-repeating what I already said.

Although the word you were looking for was liable for the damages caused not 'guilty'.

It just means the onus passes more to the party being sued to disprove that they caused the damage, nothing is 100%

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 21st February 22:22

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Monday 21st February 22:22

[mk1fan]

I'm not sure where I repeated anything you said????

The fact that the burden of proof is reversed in party wall cases is very significant. Such that it's easier for an Adjoining Owner to sue with confidence. If more people realised this then they wouldn't stick two fingers up to the Act.

But hey, if you want to be a smarmy prick about it then feel free.