Im sorry what is ridiculous?
Actually, the question of whether or not you have lodged a claim with the court has not as yet been asked as far as I can see in the above posts from various contributors.
The question that has been posed, and which you have avoided answering a number of times, is whether or not you have sent a written claim by means of a letter sent ‘Recommandee avec Avis de Reception’ to the registered office of the company that owns the vehicle that struck the wall.
Your repeated avoidance of answering this very specific question tends to make me think that you have not in fact sent such a letter, which with all due respect, is in my view a poor decision on your part.
I’m not sure that you fully understand the system relating to these matters. The vehicle owner becomes aware that a claim against them may be forthcoming, and notifies his insurer of this fact in order to remain in compliance with the terms of the contract of insurance. The insurer thanks the policy holder for notifying them, and instructs the policyholder to forward any claim received to them so that they can deal with it. When the policy holder receives a written letter setting out the details of the claim being made against him, then he forwards that to the insurer, and it is at this point, and ONLY at this point, that the insurer starts the process of dealing with the matter. So, no formal letter of claim means no action being taken by the insurer, and no pay-out being made. Basically, no formal letter of claim means that there simply is no claim being made as far as the insurer is concerned.
I really do most strongly advise you to send that letter. Do not rely on e-mails or word of mouth.
I wish you well in this matter, and I hope that you have a good outcome, but to be honest, when you say “I have no intention of rebuilding”, it makes me wonder as to what outcome you would consider to be a good result.
I had thought up until now that you wanted to be compensated for the cost of rebuilding the wall to the condition it was in prior to the collision, but now I am not so sure of that in view of your recent comment of earlier this evening.
1 Like
Thank you Robert we seem to be on a misunderstanding here. I have been dealing with the matter and therefore have a good understanding of it. I have not as yet written a letter to the lorry owner but have been communicating with him through email. As mentioned in an earlier post, the insurance company have contacted me and want my rib to pay into my bank.
“Do not intend to rebuild” refers to a rebuilding of my wall if complaint successful and ordered to rebuild. by Prosecutor I do not have another ten thousand to repeat this project. I do however fully intend to repair the damage caused by lorry.
It’s possibly difficult to understand without seeing photos, but the damage to wall fairly superficial. The wall itself quite a few metres long, expensive will not be replaced if demolished.
Thanks for the clarification.
Are they not one and the same, we used to send mailed letters that the postman delivered, now we now send electronically transmitted letters delivered by robots.
No they are not John so far as the legal system in France is concerned. There has to be proof of postage - hence “Recommandee avec Avis de Reception” It is all too easy for an email to be ignored or indeed to go missing because it has been dumped in a spam box. Also, as frequently discussed elsewhere, French business culture is to ignore or at least put much less weight on emails. Suzan has been lucky that the owner of the lorry seems to be responding to her.
3 Likes
That sounds promising. As you’ll have gathered, there are several people on here who have been following your situation. I hope you will let us know of the final outcome.
2 Likes
Yes I understand that. Perhaps I am as quilty of lack of qualified information as the original poster and should have put an appropriate emoji after my tongue in cheek comment 
like this.
1 Like
So many posts about a potential insurance claim for damage to a 10k wall that you say will cost in excess of 1K to repair yet the damage is ‘fairly superficial’ suggesting that it is surface and not structural damage.
Indeed it is difficult to understand your wall and the superficial damage to it without seeing photos which clearly you have.
Perhaps you should share a photo here so that a better understanding is provided to those who have done their very best to offer advice for which you have requested.
4 Likes
I have lost the plot.
I thought the issue was no communication from anybody and nothing happening. But it turns out emails have been flying this way and that all the time.
I hope it all turns out as you wish.
1 Like
Thank you Sue, I will certainly let everyone know the outcome.
There’s an alternative timeline though isn’t there?
- lorry hits wall
- owner willing to settle without involving insurance, asks for devis
- despite “superficial” damage devis is for > 1000€
- lorry owner decides that’s a bit rich for his palate, will involve insurance after all
- asks for your insurance details for his claim
- <tumbleweed>
- …
I really think this would have been less painful for you, had you maintained your buildings and public liability cover.
Also - if your wall was planned in the right place, and built in the wrong one then you should be able to claim on the decennial insurance held by the maçon who built it.
5 Likes
I am sorry but if, as now seems possible and even probable, the owner/driver have done everything required to put in a claim on your behalf, some of the harsh things you have said about them do seem unjustified.
3 Likes
6 Likes
No difficulty I can assure you and contrary to what you suggest, yes I have read all the previous posts.
Why not post a photo, as a picture speaks a thousand words!
As for the history then your details very clearly provide many ifs and maybe’s.
I’m done and look forward to your post that confirms your saga has been resolved whatever the outcome.
1 Like
And if it was planned in the wrong place then your architect is at fault and should rectify the situation for you, again a simple matter to claim on his decennial insurance.
4 Likes
that would ordinarily be the case, but here IIRC the female architect is a friend and was not apparently commissioned officially to perform any task… just a mate doing a favour by all accounts…
ie - no commission = no payment = no enforceable contract
1 Like
such a shame when an experienced builder correspondent like John feels he has to bow out of a topic because the OP can’t (or won’t) assemble all the facts in one place in a coherent fashion with photographic evidence in support of the case they are trying to make to the community here.
Not to mention that some other very experienced people have also contributed to this topic.
2 Likes
You have also been told that a cadastral plan is not binding without a geometre having done the bornes.
2 Likes