Money Moral Dilemma: Do you charge house guests for breakages?

RUFFYONEVILLA

Anyhow most blokes would secretly be quite happy with this.
Any excuse to go out and buy a new 50" 1080p High Definition beauty!!!:beer:

Dianne_2

Hmmm. I think I'd offer to pay, but if you can afford a £500 telly, you should certainly have some sort of accidental damage cover for it?

I also think the responsibility for avoiding cricket ball in the house shenanigans has to lie with everyone. If someone's kid in my house isn't being told to behave properly by his/her parents, I'd be sending them outside to play myself. If the kid had injured themselves after doing something daft in your house that you sat and watched them do, would it be a consolation to you that their parents should have been telling them to behave?

topgungaz

Shytalker wrote: »

I agree with what looks like the consensus. The friend should not have let their ankle-biter throw a ball indoors but should take responsibility and offer to pay for the LCD TV. If they are reluctant then they aren't proper mates and a stern talking to is required.

If they shrug off responsibility, they don't get invited back and that's that or - Plan B - suggest a return cricket match in their house and see if the penny drops. LCD TVs are improving all the time and it could be a blessing in disguise if they do the decent thing.

If it's LCD, get a Panasonic but not if it's a plasma. I've seen permanent vertical lines on their plasmas (two examples). I've seen good picture quality on LGs and Philips but some Samsungs look a bit iffy.

Yes the childs parents should pay, mind you how and who let it happen? I mean a child and ball in the same room as my expensive tv noway.

I must say I have a Panasonic plasma TV and the picture is perfect , way better than my other Hd TV which is LCD . In fact beore buying the plasma I Idid extensive research and after looking and viewing nearly ever make found the Panasonic to be best. What make is yours?

tallgirld

I would expect my friend to replace the T.V.

Knowing my luck though I would end up having replace it as a few of my friends have a habit of pleading poverty!!!!

Moosemarmalade

sweet_ceroc wrote: »

I would not allow a child to throw a ball about like that anyway, so no charge! However, my teenage son (17) and/or his girlfriend dropped their chinese meal/soup on my new laptop and totally rubbished the keypad! He will be paying for a new keypad and she is no longer welcome in my home.

I agree with you that he has to pay for the keypad - however to not welcome her into the home? Perhaps if you let both of them pay and still come into the home that way they learn that we all make mistakes - and we rectify by having good stance on life - its not about trying to control - its accepting that things happens and you are the teacher in all of this! just my opinion!:A

KiptheCat

Just a thought, but nobody has mentioned this - in the vast majority of cases, your contents cover WOULD cover accidental damage in these circumstances, even if you don't have a general AD extension on the policy.

Most household policies automatically include Accidental Damage to TVs, VCRs, satellite equipment, hi-fis and DVD players, even if it's just a standard policy.

Worth checking out - it is usually listed at the end of the "what is covered" section under "Extra Benefits".

Accidental damages to fixed glass and sanitary ware is also included with a standard buildings policy. This includes greenhouses, conservatories and all bathroom fittings. Most also cover AD to ceramic hobs if they're built in.

It pays to read that boring insurance policy!

trejoy

I would never ask a guest for money for breakages. I invited them, I allowed a hard ball to be played with in my lounge, I chose not to have accidental coverage, my fault.
My friends children broke a portable tv years ago whilst playing, she wanted to pay, I lied and told her that hubbie had fixed it. I suppose it depnds on how much you value friends really, who really cares about possessions.:A

TeaClipper

I would expect any friends/guests of mine to offer to pay for the damage or to claim it off their own insurance. I was brought up on the Continent and it is standard practice over there that the "breaker" claims off their own insurance. In fact, I believe that it is law in many Euro countries that children are covered by their parents' "Personal Damage Insurance" policies to cover just such an incident.

Also, having been brought up to respect other people's property I always offer to pay for or fix anything I may have damaged in a friend's house (I'm quite clumsy), so I would expect this attitude to be reciprocated.

Last point, I wouldn't break up a friendship because of this, but humans being what they are, Tommy's parents may feel so guilty they end up not visiting you again in any case. A shame I know, but something similar has happened to us in the past.

kazzie-ann

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

No, I think that's my whole point. If someone has expensive stuff then they should expect to replace it themselves if their friend (who can't afford expensive stuff) breaks it.

Expensive or not, if you cannot aford to replace it don't break it, that being said any parent with any sense would not let their kids (monsters) do that in someone else's house. I was always taught treat other peoples property as if it was your own, respect them and their home.

There's no point falling out over thing's and if you do mabey your friendship wasn't what you thought, when stuff like this happens i would hope it could be sorted out quickly (my kids know better, i only have to give them the look) one is 15 and other is 17 so i would worry if they did it now, youngest one is 9, she goes in garden and bombs about out there:A

JimmyTheWig

kazzie-ann wrote: »

Expensive or not, if you cannot aford to replace it don't break it

Children have accidents. There are things you can do (e.g. don't let them play with a cricket ball indoors!) but others you can't (e.g. a toddler might just fall over for no apparent reason).
So the only way to guarantee not to break it would be to not go to that person's house.

That's what I was saying in the first place, and what a shame it would be if that were the case.