Neighbour says brick from my chimney damaged her car

[Streetwitch]

My chimney was badly damaged in the gales. I booked a roofer to rebuild it and had scaffolding put up to safeguard the pavement and road from falling debris.

The neighbour said a falling brick damaged her car while she was parked next to the scaffolding. Nobody saw it happen, she doesn't know when it happened, and the only reason she noticed the damage is because another neighbour pointed it out to her.

She won't go to her insurance company because she doesn't want to lose her no claims bonus (she's only been driving for a year though).

The damage looks odd, white and streaky, not like a brick, so I'm wondering whether there is any way of getting advice about whether it's consistent with brick damage?

Does anyone know if I'm liable?

Also, I don't want to be arsey about this - if I've caused the damage, I'll contribute, but I don't want to if it might have been something that had happened previously.

Thanks!

The poster to whom I was responding was suggesting that the courts would tell the neighbour to claim on her insurance. I was explaining why they wouldn't. Yes, if the neighbour does claim on her insurance and OP refers this to her own insurance, it would then be for the insurers to sort it out.

This is such bollocks. Even if she did claim on her insurance when she should have, I very much doubt they would have come after you/your house insurance. They would simply have paid out, minus her excess.

Did she think your scaffolding was the new 2024 must have?? She parked there...

Tough shit for her then. There is nothing you need to do.

None of it has got anything to do with OP. Someone's car was damaged, they go to their car insurance. The car insurer may then choose to chase either OPs home insurance or the scaffolders public liability insurance to recoup the costs. OP is not liable to pay anything to her neighbour. That is what insurance is for.
Expecially when fault is disputed.

The only thing that is making her out of pocket is that she has paid for insurance and is now refusing to use her premiums to good effect! Not even bothering to get quotes for the work and expecting you to accept her rather unbelievable story about how the damage occurred sounds like someone trying to get something for nothing from your insurance without putting herself to any inconvenience.

An 11 year old car , especially one that is parked on the street, is probably going to have dinks and bumps ( believe me I know) and while first cars are precious, she needs to be realistic , both about the damage, how it was caused and sadly the negative detriment it has made to her cars value and appearance.

If OP is liable, the neighbour isn’t obliged to use her own insurance to make her property good. She can come straight after OP if she wants to. And OP can then turn to her own insurance. OP’s insurance can not require the neighbour to tackle a claim for damage through her own car insurance just because it’s their policy. OP’s insurance is nothing to do with the neighbour and has not authority over what she does.

The only thing iffy about the neighbour not going to her car insurance is that her contract with the insurance probably requires her to inform them of damage. But that contract is between the neighbour and her insurance firm, nothing at all to do with OP and has no bearing on whether the OP is liable.

The question at issue is whether OP is liable or not. How the neighbour chooses to pursue a claim is not something OP has the right to dictate.

Yes, has she given you the brick in evidence, so roofer can ascertain it is indeed from your chimney?

I had this. You are not liable.

The question at issue is whether OP is liable or not. How the neighbour chooses to pursue a claim is not something OP has the right to dictate.

No - but it is something the insurance industry can and does dictate - the home insurance will have zero interest and say contact the car insurance...

The car insurance will say thank you - give us the details...

If the claimant tries to sue the OP, any court will say this is a civil matter not a criminal matter - is there insurance in place - yes - why have you not been through the insurance that is there for this purpose...

Why would OP's home insurance have zero interest? If she is liable for the damage, that is an issue for them.

And no, the courts would not ask why the claimant hasn't been through the insurance. That is entirely irrelevant. If OP is liable, the courts wouldn't care whether it was the claimant suing OP or the claimant's insurers acting on the claimant's behalf.

Seems pretty clear it wasn’t your brick that caused it.

Id honestly just say you can’t afford to pay and your home insurance have said she needs to go through her car insurance, so she will have to go through her insurance and leave it at that.

It’s her fault for leaving it too long and now she can’t go through her insurance but that’s not your problem.

This is very easily solved. She claims on her car insurance and tells them that she thinks it's your fault. Her motor insurer seeks to recovery from your home insurer.

If they can prove it was your fault and recover the money from your insurer, her no claims will be reinstated.

Just both put it on the hands of your insurers... that's what it's there for!

OP's insurance won't be interested in a liability claim if there is no liability cover! Most people just have bog standard first party property cover which WON'T respond to third party property damage. I don't have liability cover on my home policy.

You are right that there is no restriction on people suing each other directly. They aren't obliged to engage their insurers though you might as well since you've paid the premium to have the cover!

Thanks, to be clear, since a few people have mentioned this, I do have third party liability cover.

When we had a roof tile hit our car bonnet, it made a huge dent. We had to go through our car insurance.

Stop engaging with her. She is being totally unreasonable. Car owners have car insurance for a reason. She either goes through her insurance or stops bothering you.

"I'm not going to engage with you any further on this. You should have gone through your car insurance. Now please stop bothering me."

Totally ridiculous
no Brick on the car
no brick anywhere near the car
it doesn’t look or sound like brick damage
nobody saw it happen!

She can claim by all means but I’d be mightily miffed if it affected my future house insurance premiums

disengage with her completely

Thanks all, this is incredibly helpful. It seems to me that regardless of where the brick came from, or if indeed there was a brick, or if she does or doesn't claim on her insurance - I would not be considered liable since I made every effort to prevent damage from falling debris by having - expensive! - scaffolding put up.

Does this seem right?

Well not really, surely the reason for the scaffolding was to enable the work to be carried out safely because that’s what you have to do for the safety of the roofers.The scaffolding was there to protect them, not to protect a car parked underneath it.

Not necessarily. As the previous poster says, the purpose of scaffolding is primarily to keep the roofer safe whilst working on the chimney, not to prevent damage from debris. And if the roofer dropped something which damaged your neighbour's car, you may be liable for their negligence (although in that situation, you would have a claim against the roofer).

She's a chancer.

Do not give her a penny.

This is incorrect. In the common law tort of negligence the claimant has to pursue the tortfeasor (party who was actually negligent). If neighbour pursued OP directly she would have a complete defence - the independent contractor defence. Only if OP was directly supervising/controlling the negligent works would she be potentially liable. Simply instructing the work does not give rise to vicarious liability.

Actually no - I specifically put the scaffolding there because it's a busy street and I was concerned for the safety of pedestrians and cars. I was advised to do this by the council.

I said OP "may be" liable, not that she would be. I am not making any assumptions as to the extent to which OP controlled or supervised the roofer.