AIBU to refuse to pay NDN £1000?

[SavBlancTonight]

We live in an area with clay soil with a well known subsidence issue, exacerbated currently by weird weather of the last few years. Our house is one of many in area currently being investigated for subsidence issues, via insurance company. We have bushes/trees on our boundaries at the front and certainly, the roots are clearly causing some problems although exactly how much or what they will do to sort is still unclear.

Ndn is also having some minor signs of subsidence and has started similar investigation via his insurance company. They have come round today and confirmed that on his side, yes, the trees/bushes' roots are causing some issues with pipes etc underground. This is first step in process and a report will be prepared.

NDN has suggested that as the reason he has problems is our bushes, we are personally liable for his insurance excess of £1000.

I say, 1) it's entirely not clear that our bushes are responsible at this v early stage in investigations, and its very unlikely they are solely responsible 2) even if they are, this is not something we have personal liability for. The bushes have been there for years- long before we moved in. But even if he has a case, it's for our insurance and his to fight it out. If it is decided that somehow we are liable, our insurance may agree to pay out. But we are not personally required to pay his excess?

I mean, isn't that what insurance is for?

I don’t understand this unless it only applies to subsidence. If someone crashed their car into my house they would be liable despite me not predicting that they might do that.

Interesting.
Naughty neighbour, bad builder and crap structural engineer ( bet they didn’t even consult one )
They should have put in a barrier. If they haven’t they should now!
Save your tree!

Ask them what mitigation measures their structural engineer proposed to stop your existing tree affecting their new extension. Ask to see the engineers drawings. There won’t be any, but I think you’ll have made your point.

If you crashed your car into someone's house that would be negligence (I assume). The negligent act would be in that moment so prior notice of the risk is irrelevant because all drivers are on notice that negligent driving presents a risk of damage and injury. If your bushes encroached onto your neighbours land that would be nuisance (a tort similar to negligence) but you wouldn't be at fault until you had been "negligent" by being aware of the specific risk and failed to take reasonable steps within a reasonable time.

Sorry Lady Temperance, re reading your post. The victim does not need to be on notice, only the tortfeasor (defendant).

We had something similar. Our neighbours property had a huge double extension put on the back by a builder and of course being an older property the foundations of the new extension didn’t match the much shallower foundations of the original part of the house.

My neighbours insurance company told me that it was my trees that were the problem but as they all had TPOs on them then I had to apply to the local council in order to remove them.

I knew it wasn’t my trees otherwise my house would have been affected

I had a word with my neighbour and because I had watched them build the extension I knew the problem was how they had “tied” in the brickwork of the extension.

No one believed me. So I obtained permission to remove the trees and neighbour was still experiencing cracking in her house.

It took them 3 years to finally admit that the problem was not actually the trees but how they had “tied” the extension to the original house.

Just out of interest but how long have you lived there, and when you moved in and had a survey done, was anything said about them possibly causing an issue in the future?

If your insurers assume full responsibility and deal with all costs, he won't need to pay his excess - he would only pay that if his insurer deals with the costs.

I wouldn't pay his excess - it can be taken as an admission of liability.

It's HIS excess on HIS insurance policy , nowt to do with you .

Do you have liability insurance OP? If not then your insurers will have nothing to do with it anyway.

I think if my bushes are to blame, a better analogy would be if I parked my car, legally, on the street and then there was an insane storm and as a result my car was actually lifted and smashed into their house. I don't think they could argue that because it was my car, I am to blame.

Ranks @honhoneylulu I don't know that we do have liability insurance. But at the end of the day, it seems clear that no matter what, we don't just fork over £1000!

I think it's quite normal for policies to have a higher access in the small print if the claim is for subsidence. My buildings insurance excess is £50 for anything else but £1000 for subsidence. Its all I've ever known, but I'm a geek who always reads the small print!

Your own insurers will be very unhappy if you admit any blame or fault by paying compensation.

Tell neighbour he needs to wait for results of his insurers investigation; then tne insurers  can discuss any  distrubution of losses.

If both houses (and others) it's hardly the fault of your bushes however if your bushes have caused problems it'll be down to your insurance to pay up. If he claims on his own and there's a £1000 excess (which is typical) he could in theory make a civil claim against you for the difference.