What they mean by further,I assume,is any more mortar that falls after the receipt of the letter from the neighbour,dated 31/03/2014.
Again, if the 'damage' was just this cosmetic artificial damage then they can TRY and claim it
But they would need to convince a Court that they have suffered damage AND a loss
I can't see where there loss is
Can I clarify anything for you?
We are concerned that this man will do what he can to exacerbate the situation and thus "force" my mother into paying to have this work done.She is now 84 and is worried about the aggravation that goes with this issue.
Hi Alex-it is only cosmetic-would this constitute a judgement against my mother?I do not wish for her to spend up to £1500 at this time in her life.I think that she is better spending it on holidays etc.Also, I am concerned that even if this work is done this man will still find faults!
I have seen the issue,all that is happening is that periodically small pieces of mortar may fall out and land on his driveway.
As I said previously-maybe he should have surveyed it before having the tarmac layed?
Yes he should have.
But they have to prove any damage and what they have done to litigate their loss
* mitigate not litigate *
Can I clarify anything else?
Would it be a good idea for me to write a letter outlining that he perhaps should have done this,before he had the work done and that my mother has felt intimidated by his actions.(He actually escorted her into town,at his suggestion,to speak with his insurers!)
Hi Alex,any comments?
Sorry for the delay, I have been at Court. Yes I would certainly write this and set out the position.
This would be very useful to set out how you see things.
Does this help?
This is good news,going back previously, the £1500 that I mentioned was the cost,to my mother, of re-pointing-not the cost of repair of alleged "damage".
I am happy to have helped
Please remember to leave feedback before you go today