My My son’s house backs on to a golf course and two weeks ago a golf ball went over the hedge and broke the upstairs bathroom window.
The golf club says it is not its responsibility and that it should discuss the matter with the golfer who broke the window, whose details it provided.
My son thinks this should be the responsibility of the golf club. Is he right?
M.Greenway, via email.
One reader’s son was left with a hefty bill after a stray ball on a nearby golf course crashed through his bathroom window.
Dean Dunham responds: If your child’s home was built after the golf course, the club itself will not normally be liable for damages caused by its users.
This is because the potential risk of harm from golf course users existed before the house was built.
If, on the other hand, the golf course was built after the house, it could be argued that it was foreseeable that your son’s house could be damaged by users of the course, potentially meaning that the golf club could be liable.
The same argument could be used if the golf club has been significantly altered in a way that has increased the risk of injury to golfers.
If your child’s home insurance covers this type of damage – and I believe it will – my advice is to ask your child to make the claim and pass on all the relevant details to his or her insurer.
However, you will first need to make sure that it is financially worth doing so once the insurance excess is taken into account.
You will need to provide your insurer with details of the individual who caused the damage and details of whether the golf course was built before or after your home was developed.
Your insurance provider will be in a better position to decide who is ultimately responsible. As long as at least one of these parties is responsible, this should not affect your premiums.
If your child regularly finds golf balls in their garden or near their boundaries, they could warn the golf club that there is a serious risk of harm (or even injury) and ask how they propose to minimise the risk.
The change of wedding wine cost me 50 pounds more
I ordered 50 bottles of Pinot Grigio for my wedding but when the wine merchant delivered he said he had run out and brought 50 bottles of Chardonnay at £1 more per bottle.
It says I have to pay the difference, is that correct?
RM, via email.
Dean Dunham responds: When you purchase goods from a trader, their terms and conditions (if properly disclosed to you before purchase) will form the terms of the contract between you and the trader.
However, this will not be the full scope of the contract as all relevant parts of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which impose obligations on the trader in relation to the sale of goods will also apply – these are known as ‘implied terms’.
One such term implied by the Act is that goods must be “as described”, so the moment the wine merchant delivered the wrong wine to you, he was effectively in “breach of contract”.
At this point you were entitled to a solution, the main options being a full refund or replacement of the products, which in this case would mean receiving the 50 bottles of Pinot Grigio you actually ordered or keeping the more expensive wine without paying the difference.
Unfortunately, the merchant has the right to choose which remedy to invoke, so they might say that they will simply refund you the full amount.
But what it can’t do is force you to keep the wrong products and pay an extra £1 per bottle – it can only go down this route if you’re okay with it.
If you feel forced to keep the wrong wine due to time constraints, my advice is to tell the merchant that unless they waive the extra charge, you will claim consequential losses arising from the breach of contract, as you are perfectly entitled to do under the Consumer Rights Act.
As a result of the infringement, you would have to pay an additional charge of £1 per bottle.
Alternatively, it could be said that under English law the remedy for breach of contract is to put you back in the position you would have been in if the breach had not occurred.
If the wine merchant simply refunds your money, they are losing out if they cannot find a suitable replacement in time, and if they charge you an extra £1 per bottle, they are clearly worse off.
