Daughter fell off bike and scratched neighbours car parked in drive...

saverholic

sparkleworld wrote: »

I apologise if i came across as pedantic Lum , my query wasn't about wether the bike had caused the damage but if you look at the photograph posted by Op I cant see how it would have damaged the one car with out the other whilst her little girl still managed to go over the handlebars she must have been sandwiched between the two cars

I may be pointing out the obvious but....couldn't the cars have been moved? The OP did say they were sending their partner back out to take another photo indicating at least some time had passed. Maybe at the time of the incident the silver one wasn't there or was in a different position

andygb

This whole thing is pretty straightforward really, and nobody is questioning the parenting skills of the OP.
The OP has already admitted that damage was caused, and that one of the scratches goes down to the primer.
So, the OP is responsible for the damage caused by her daughter, regardless of the age of the car, or the financial circumstances of the OP.
It is not up to the OP to instruct the car's owner where the repair should be carried out.
There are so many instances nowadays, where people do not want to take responsibility for their actions. It does not matter if some people just shrug off damage to their vehicles, because everyone is different. Some people are rightly proud of their first, shiny car, and want to keep it in good condition.
I also think that the OP was asking a bit much, for the car's owner to feel concern over the young girl, particularly as the car was parked on the drive.

twinmumagain

Covered under home insurance so just a £50 excess and my no claims is aparently covered too so she gets her repair done with someone she is happy with(I presume) and I am not left in debt.

stebiz

twinmumagain wrote: »

Covered under home insurance so just a £50 excess and my no claims is aparently covered too so she gets her repair done with someone she is happy with(I presume) and I am not left in debt.

Be careful with the No Claims?? A few years back I had car insurance that was covered by a protected no claims. My insurance was £600. The following year it was £900 - but I still had my no claims intact?? Bit of a con in my opinion.

sequence

Kids should be able to play on a residential street. It's sad that we're so car obsessed they can't in most cases. Streets are for people not just cars.

Keith

OP - Glad it's sorted.

sequence wrote: »

Kids should be able to play on a residential street. It's sad that we're so car obsessed they can't in most cases. Streets are for people not just cars.

The pavement is for walking & the road isn't for children learning to ride a bike. The danger of a car reversing off either drive hasn't been considered.

goingforward_3

Keith wrote: »

OP - Glad it's sorted.



The pavement is for walking & the road isn't for children learning to ride a bike. The danger of a car reversing off either drive hasn't been considered.

The numpty that whacked my car with his tennis bat also has a habit of playing chicken when your reversing out of the drive.. how he has never been splattered i dont know.

ali-t

sequence wrote: »

Kids should be able to play on a residential street. It's sad that we're so car obsessed they can't in most cases. Streets are for people not just cars.

The car was up the owners drive, not sitting on the street

sequence

I didn't say kids can/should play on the street in today's environment, I just meant that it's sad that we've become so car centric that it's not possible.

You'd couldn't let a 4 year old play on the road today...

laurz121

Judas wrote: »

Well your opinion clearly is that of a half wit.

Protected NO CLAIMS!
Not protected PREMIUM

You still received the same no claims bonus hence it was protected; however; your premium increased due to the increase in risk.

Perfectly legal but I think we all know it is a bit of a con with insurance companies attempting to (legally) deceive the consumer because they know that the vast majority of us don't realise that protected no claims doesn't stop your premium from going up. The average consumer is under the impression that if they have protected no claims they can have a crash without it affecting their premiums next year. This is a perfectly understandable assumption and is exactly what the insurance companies want us to think.

It is legal but it is still a con, a con in the same way as the DFS sales are a con 'must end this weekend' only to be replaced by an identical sale at the stroke of midnight.