Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

Original poster

To still get refunded..

18 replies

Passwordwizard · 10/05/2019 15:30

I’m not sure so just garnering opinions.

Going to try and keep identifying factors out in case it outs me.

Some one damaged my property. They said they would pay for the costs.

Whilst I’m waiting to have them done some other person has done exactly the same. Same spot. More damage but it will still cost the same to fix. I don’t know who did the second lot of damage

Do I take this on the chin and pay for it myself as it’s slightly worse but still costs the same to fix - Or still expect the first person to pay.

What do you think?

OP posts:

GottenGottenGotten · 10/05/2019 15:32

If there's no change to costs, I would expect the first person to pay. If it costs more, I would stump up the extra.

I would also be seeing if I could do a better job of protecting it, if possible.

IAmTheChosenOne · 10/05/2019 15:37

Still expect the first person to pay for their damage.

SuziQ10 · 10/05/2019 15:40

First person to pay for the original damage and you should pay the difference if there is anything additional at all.

Sounds like you should think about changing the location of whatever it is on your property that's been damaged.

Original poster

Passwordwizard · 10/05/2019 16:06

Thanks for replies. Dh thinks so too but I’m worried first person will see second lot of damage and say ‘no way!’

OP posts:

Original poster

Passwordwizard · 10/05/2019 16:07

Visually it looks a lot worse but still needed replacing/fixing the same amount anyway

OP posts:

JollyAndBright · 10/05/2019 16:13

Do you have photographs and quotes for the repair of the original damage?

Tbh I would be tempted to go and get a few quotes, pick the middle one and get it fixed, the pursue the person for the cost.
That way they won’t know about the second amount of damage so can’t refuse to pay.

AnnieOH1 · 10/05/2019 16:14

Did the second date occur because of the first? Did you do anything to mitigate the second lot happening after the first lot? If it is a case of someone broke a fence post first then the fence panel broke as a result I would at minimum want first person to pay 100% for fence post. Depending on the situation the first person may still be liable for up to 100% of the secondary damage. If it is definitely something that only happened because of the first damage and isn't something you could have stopped I think I would be asking for 100% of first and 50% of second.

JollyAndBright · 10/05/2019 16:14

*assuming the cost is no different to the original quote

Nearlythere1 · 10/05/2019 16:40

I can't believe you're expecting the first person to stump up extra cash for the extra damage caused by somebody else. Honestly, that's shit behaviour.

Nesssie · 10/05/2019 16:43

I can't believe you're expecting the first person to stump up extra cash for the extra damage caused by somebody else. Honestly, that's shit behaviour.

This

Original poster

Passwordwizard · 10/05/2019 17:07

There is no extra cash involved. Which I have stated already

The first person caused the damage but it looked superficial however something had buckled and another part cracked. They both needed totally replacing.

The second incident made a lot more damage, looks worse but the end result is the two items still need replacing - same cost.

Second incident was definitely not caused by incident one.

I can only put it down to two random bizarre accidents. Never had it happen before

OP posts:

Original poster

Passwordwizard · 10/05/2019 17:13

On second thoughts maybe the damage looks so extensive because it has already been buckled and cracked making it weaker. However the out come is still the same. It still needs replacing at the same cost.

OP posts:

BogglesGoggles · 10/05/2019 17:23

Legally, person 1 pays for the damage they did and person 2 pays the gap between what it would cost to pay their damage and what it would cost to fix person 1s damage.

BogglesGoggles · 10/05/2019 17:24

E.g. person 1 £100 of damage
Person 2 £300 of damage.
Person one pays £100 and person 2 pays £200

seven201 · 10/05/2019 17:27

But she says the cost of repair is no different. Just that whoever did the second lot of damage didn't confess. I'm guessing it's a wall!

BogglesGoggles · 10/05/2019 17:27

Sorry, was clear. Because it costs the same here person one is responsible for the cost to fix. 100%. I cant remeber the case but the principle is referred to as ‘damaging and already damaged claimant’

Original poster

Passwordwizard · 10/05/2019 17:28

There isn’t a gap.

Think a door frame was cracked and the door buckled.

Then another accident which sees the door frame come completely away from wall and door smashed.

Both hit by heavy objects

The remedy for both is new frame and new door.

OP posts:

JollyAndBright · 10/05/2019 19:55

I assumed this was something like a car accident.

Someone went into the back of the car, damaged the bumper and although it looked minor on the surface the bumper was damaged enough to need replacing.

The second incident was maybe someone hitting the car in a car park, left without leaving details, this accident caused a lot of damage to the bumper, but since the bumper was already damaged it doesn’t matter because it needed replacing anyway.

Flip