J
JoeB
Guest
Hi
We recently had a collasped tree during the storms.
A tree from my garden fell onto a party wall, and into someone elses garden. (It's presumed to be a party wall)
The insurance company agree that the wall needs to be repaired, and they are saying that 'because it's a boundary wall only half is covered.'. If he owned the wall, or I owned the wall then it'd be fully covered.. but since it's a 50-50 ownership only half is covered.
Can this be correct?
When I asked them to demonstrate that what they said was true they agreed to pay the full amount of the wall...
This might help other people, with insurers who refuse to pay up, and who refuse to clarify why they're saying what they're saying.
Part of the tree is still standing.. this is considered unsafe by me, and by my affected neighbor. (One of three large boughs is still standing, but the trunk is split, and is filling with water)
The insurance company wants me to pay for a report to determine if the still standing part of the tree is unsafe. Is this reasonable? (The money for the report must be paid by us, and cannot be claimed back, even if the report states that the tree is unsafe and must be removed.)
I can't see a distinction between the still standing wall, and the still standing tree.I wasn't asked to get engineers reports relating to the wall, so why the tree?
Are the insurance company trying it on?
Cheers
We recently had a collasped tree during the storms.
A tree from my garden fell onto a party wall, and into someone elses garden. (It's presumed to be a party wall)
The insurance company agree that the wall needs to be repaired, and they are saying that 'because it's a boundary wall only half is covered.'. If he owned the wall, or I owned the wall then it'd be fully covered.. but since it's a 50-50 ownership only half is covered.
Can this be correct?
When I asked them to demonstrate that what they said was true they agreed to pay the full amount of the wall...
This might help other people, with insurers who refuse to pay up, and who refuse to clarify why they're saying what they're saying.
Part of the tree is still standing.. this is considered unsafe by me, and by my affected neighbor. (One of three large boughs is still standing, but the trunk is split, and is filling with water)
The insurance company wants me to pay for a report to determine if the still standing part of the tree is unsafe. Is this reasonable? (The money for the report must be paid by us, and cannot be claimed back, even if the report states that the tree is unsafe and must be removed.)
I can't see a distinction between the still standing wall, and the still standing tree.I wasn't asked to get engineers reports relating to the wall, so why the tree?
Are the insurance company trying it on?
Cheers