Legal advice

you don't need legal advise, you need a pint of common sense - when you verbally agreed for them to make use of your garden, along with verbally agreeing that they will make good after the works I suspect you were on good speaking terms with them

so talk to them, tell them you aren't at all happy - hopefully they will do whatever they can to make you happy

if they, or their builder isn't interested in making you happy then there's sod all you can legally do to force them to make good, don't get all bitter and twisted, ask them very nicely, a number of times, if no joy then perhaps send them a formal letter expressing your dissatisfaction

now if you have a proper written agreement documenting the terms of use along with how the making good will be carried out .......

perhaps another of lifes lessons

 

you now know what to do when they next ask for a favour

 

just the add, a gentlemans agreement is legally binding in certain circumstances, this is one of those, where it wouldn't necessarily be deemed necessary to have a written agreement for such an event.
So in short get them to sort it out to your satisfaction or you sue for a whole new patio, Simples.

 

don't forget to add a few grand for mental anguish and geranium damage

 

Dazron, what a time to find out your neighb is a complete 'hole.

Your choice is simple; Sean's or Phil's

If you decide Sean's, then remain the calm, reasonable & dignified fellow you are at the moment. Appeal to any decency they may have left in them. If that proves fruitless, then at least you know where you stand with them, you know how to treat them (with complete indifference), and come the day they need another favour, you resist smiling too much and just tell them 'Non - and you know why.'

You write them letters and you keep dated copies. In it you explain your deep disappointment that one neighbour can treat another this way, especially when you showed them such helpfulness with their project. You add that you don't want to become the type of selfish neighbour who will in future automatically say "NO!" to any request for help by a fellow neighbour - you want to remain a helpful and thoughtful member of the neighbourhood, but their attitude risks destroying your trust. (Really go for it - turn the emotional knife...)

If you go this option and they fail to respond - then, chin up, know you are far superior, don't get sucked down to their slimeball level, and get on with enjoying living there. Ie: DON'T let it 'eat' at you. Don't try and get revenge. Always be the better person (until you get a chance to stuff them...). Honestly, if you remain reasonable, it will make them feel uncomfortable. Honestly. If, however, you get bitter and tetchy and snappy back at them, they will retire happy that they've 'justified' to their sad minds why they didn't help you.


If you chose to go with Phil, then you need to do it by the letter of the 'law' and get legal advice. There is a process to be followed, and there's a reasonable chance you'll win. Bear in mind if they start saying "We never agreed to nuffink", it'll almost be one word against another. But not quite.

What will a judge decide? Who knows, but if the rest of your patio is in good order, then it will be pretty obvious to any impartial observer that you are owed it being put back properly. You bring the action, a date is set, you turn up - and they might not. If they don't, they lose. If they do, they'll have to explain to the judge why they are not reinstating your patio to the condition it was previously when you have been so generous to them. That'll be very hard for them to do.

Check your household insurance - does it have legal protection? If yes, call them up - that's just what you need.

 

Good call DA!

 

sorry to disagree DA, but there is zero chance of winning when the agreement is simply verbal, because (not that it would ever get to Court) the decision would have to be based entirely on who was the least trustworthy party - our legal system is based on evidence and proof, not opinions

if there is any written discussion of this agreement, even emails, notes of paper then perhaps there is a very small chance of winning - but the cost of pursuing such a case would be far in excess of the gain likely to be achieved

 

Verbal agreements can be legally binding, by law. The problem however comes when asked to provide evidence of any form of contract. It can become a case of "he said." she said, " . Would have been better (with hindsight) to have sent your neighbour an email at the time outlining the verbal agreement. (at least you'd have had some proof)

 

Lets not be silly here, any sensible judge will see that I order to build the extension the patio had to be taken up to a certain extent, any sensible judge will also see that it is reasonable for it to be reinstated as it was, this clearly hasn't happened, so any sensible judge will award in favour of the OP..
This isn't rocket science so lets not make it so.

 

it isn't quantum physics either, that's why such a non case would never come before a Judge - if the OP wants to spend £50,000 to win £500 that's another matter

and no legal aid isn't available

 

Sean what are you on about, small claims court, via money claim on line, you can do claims up to £100000.00 via them for a fixed fee, done it enough times with customers that try it on, never lost a case to date.

 

fair play to you Phil, what did you use as your evidence ?

 

In the last case, word of month, it was for extras that were done, they then didn't want to pay for them, there was no paperwork for the extras but there was for the original works, I took photos of the extras and the judge ruled that they had be done so had to be paid for.

In the OP case, no paper work would be needed because it would be expected that any damage would be put right, it hasn't been, so the neighbour has no defence., regardless of it being in writing.

 

so you had some documented evidence, and could probably easily illustrate an amount of money attributable to the extras- this makes all the difference

in the OPs case all the defendant would need to do would be to argue that the patio was agreed not to be re-instated as it was being replaced anyway (or any other vaguely plausible reason) - if there's nothing to support the contention, such a claim will get rejected as it's simply one persons word against the others

 

Ahh they could let the builder explain exactly how he built the extension without access to their garden.