I agree with your reading of the situation.

Your father-in-law's claim is against the neighbour, if she can persuade her insurers - or anyone else - to pay, that's up to her.

If father-in-law can get the name of her insurer, he could claim directly from them.

Does he have any proof of the accident?

When the lying starts, if it hasn't already, he may need it.

Photos of the car and the roof of the house, a note of the conversations with neighbour and you, all support his case.

If the neighbour will not see sense, his next option is the small claims court.

He should also inform his motor insurer 'for information' of the damage to the car and how it happened.

His last resort is to claim from his own insurer, but he shouldn't have to do that.

The neighbour should be ashamed of herself, but that observation doesn't help move the situation forward.

This scenario has cropped up a few times on here and most people get it wrong.

I doubt that anyone is denying that it was the neighbour's roof tile that has damaged your FIL's car. However, this does not automatically mean that the neighbour is liable. In order for the neighbour to be liable your FIL will have to demonstrate that they were negligent in maintaining their roof. If there is no evidence that the roof was in a poor state of repair then the neighbour will not be held liable.

Your FIL can either:

1. submit a claim through his car insurer who will attempt to recover their costs from the neighbour's house insurer,

2. submit a claim to the neighbour's house insurer.

Please note that in either of the above he will have to demonstrate negligence in order to succeed with his claim (the fact that the tile fell off is not evidence of negligence especially given the recent high winds).

If he tries to start small claims proceedings against his neighbour they can simply pass on the claim to their insurer who will then defend it (the same as option 2 above).