Sorn uninsured car damaged by tree

[Cactusscry]

Hi all, sorn uninsured car parked on my brothers drive for years, tonight a tree has fallen on top of it, from the same place , another tree has fallen last december, landlord was supposed to trim all trees in the summer, but he didnt no anything. Can he be held liable for my car? Im in a bit of a limbo and dont know where to go from here, trees are on his property, all very tall. Thanks

Landlord may be able to claim on his insurance?

Your car parked at your brothers for years? I beey much doubt it.

Your brother's property insurance may cover it. Try that first.

Landlords home insurance should cover it. But, if the car is that important to you, one has to ask why it has been left so long, and uninsured. What if it had been stolen??

Our car was damaged by a falling roof slate whilst on our drive. Our household insurance didn’t cover it and we had to claim on the car insurance.

Landlord insurance doesn't generally cover tenants' property. Landlord can claim for damage to his house, but not your car. That's your responsibility.

I suppose you could try to sue the landlord for negligence for not cutting back the trees, but I can't see that being successful.

Liability and insurance are different things, and I have no idea why one poster thinks the fact the car was parked on your brother's drive for years makes a difference.

The question is whether the damage to the car was caused by the landlord's negligence. If the landlord knew or should have known that the tree was diseased or damaged, he is liable. However, if the tree was healthy or the landlord took all the steps that could reasonably be expected to ensure the tree was not a danger, he is not liable. The fact that the landlord was supposed to trim the trees and fails to do so suggests you may have a case, but you need to take proper legal advice rather than asking internet randoms.

Hell, no! Landlords’ insurance doesn’t cover tenants’ items. And the car doesn’t even belong to a tenant, but to some stranger, who has left their rubbish on a drive for years.
You could try taking this to Court, but, if you had no expressed (written or he (the landlord) will acknowledge that the oral agreement was in place) permission from the landlord to keep your car there, you have no chance.

SORN insurance is a thing - you could have bought specialist cover which is obviously cheaper than cover for driving on the road. This covers against just this sort of thing, or fire, theft etc.

Tough luck I suspect as it was insured.

It doesn't matter whether it's insured or not or whether it's a car or a golden teapot, if it's been damaged by the landlords negligence in not maintaining their property then they should pay.
I do know of cases where roof tiles have fallen repeatedly and been reported and eventually more fell and damaged a car, and the landlord had to pay for the repairs in the end.
However proving all that might be an uphill struggle, I assume it's a classic car or similar, so quite valuable?
However I would agree that having your own insurance would have been prudent.

Yes landlord is responsible it just means without insurance you will have to do all the legwork in trying to get them to pay so you may have a lot of difficulty. They ought to claim on their insurance but they will probably try to fob you off.

If it's any help, many years ago, when a neighbours full size oak tree came down in a storm, wiping out his fence, my fence, my shed,, and in the street behind our houses, a lamp post and a car. Everybody had to claim on their own insurance, possibly the insurance companies then claimed off the neighbours insurance. The cost of removing the tree was not covered by any of the insurers.

This is wrong. It does not matter whether OP had permission to keep her car there. The only question is whether the landlord was negligent.

Why is the landlord responsible? If it can't be proved that the landlord knew the trees were dangerous and chose not to act, then it's just an Act Of God.

There’s a difference between “trimming trees” and one falling down..

you should have your car insured wether on or off the road. I think it’s a bit cheeky it’s even at this property!

If you can prove that the landlord could reasonably have known the tree was unsafe, and done something about it before it fell down, then you might have a case. The landlord being overdue to trim the trees is no indication that the landlords knows they will fall.

It was the way op described it as the landlord failing to maintain the trees in a timely manner, which would be negligence. She didn't mention properly maintained trees blowing down in a storm . I can only answer on the information given. If there is more to it than stated in the op then obviously my answer would change. The issue of proof/evidence is a separate matter and one that i also addressed in my post and agree that it will be hard to prove.

On a side note you aren't supposed to trim trees in the summer - it's usually a winter or early spring job when the tree is dormant. As a PP said you need to prove the tree was unsafe and the landlord knew this but didn't act. Also a SORN car should still be insured - when my father SORNEd his car the letter from the DVLA confirming it reminded him that it should still have insurance against theft, fire and accidental damage.

As a PP said you need to prove the tree was unsafe and the landlord knew this but didn't act

That should be "knew or should have known". The landlord can't simply ignore the tree and claim ignorance when it falls down.

Also, I would agree that a SORN car should still have insurance against fire, theft and accidental damage, but this is not a legal requirement.

I think that depends on the insurance. My previous policy covered me against my trees damaging neighbours' property (they were along the fenceline, leaning well over the fence belonged to neighbours) provided I could prove that I had kept them in good order and taken any professional advice given.

The landlord is liable only if it can be shown they were negligent.

This means they should have been aware the tree was unsafe. If that can be proven (and the OP suggests that he should, as they were "supposed to be trimmed") then things are fairly straightforward. However that is merely the beginning. Even if liability is established, there is the problem of actually extracting the money. Because if the landlord has been negligent then their insurance (I'll assume they have insurance; people who are negligent in one area tend to be negligent elsewhere) will refuse to pay.

The sad lesson from these types of events is that if something is of value to you, then you are better off making your own arrangements to protect it, rather than rely on other people to do it for you.

You left a wreck on your brothers drive for "years", and now it got damaged by a tree and you want to sue someone.

I mean, depending on the circumstances you might win, but are you sure the value of the car which has been SORNed for several years is as much as the cost of taking action?

Being a pedantic lawyer, it's not just negligence of the landlord that needs to be proved, but also that the damage was reasonably foreseeable (likely met given car was on a driveway, but we don't know the length of the driveway - if it's a one mile long private road and the car was parked randomly in the middle where no one would have expected anything to be parked then more of a risk).

The key flaw in an argument that this is landlord negligence rather than an act of god is that you left your car there. If it was so obvious that the trees needed trimming, why were you still parking your car there? The fact that you took the risk leads to an obvious interpretation that the situation wasn't so bad that the landlord should have known they needed to take action. It's not definitive of course (and you weren't under an obligation to not park there or to have actually identified the risk yourself). However branches fall down from trees all the time - just because that happens doesn't necessarily mean someone was negligent in maintaining them.

You also need to check the terms of your brother's lease before you even begin to go down the route of taking action against the landlord. You need to make sure that there is no risk that your brother was responsible for making sure the trees were appropriately maintained (the landlord wouldn't be negligent if this was the case). If your brother is responsible, and the landlord incurs legal costs in responding to you the landlord may be able to claim compensation for his legal costs from your brother!

Our property once ended up damaging a SORN, uninsured car of a neighbour. Our home insurance refused to pay out as the person in question should have had car insurance. If it’s worth something, insure it.