Money Moral Dilemma: Should neighbour pay as her son smashed the window

bimblejim

Hanwan24 wrote: »

Sorry - just need to post again, as a few posts appeared in the time it took me to write my last one. Without changing the subject too much, I completely disagree with the comment about the council putting up "no ball games" signs. Houses these days are built with small or no gardens at all, so if there is communal green space then the children should be allowed to do what is natural to them and play on it. If they are young then they should be supervised and if they're old enough to play alone then they should be taught to be careful and respect other people and property. "No ball games" creates nothing but animosity and removes valuable playing space for children, and to top it off they are then given ASBOs or fines for disobeying the rule... the end result of which is gangs of bored angry kids hanging around with nothing to do and nowhere to go. So they end up DELIBERATELY vandalising things. Accidents can happen, with or without "no ball games" signs, but that is when you have to be responsible about it, come clean and offer to make right what you've done wrong, be it the parent or child. A better sign would be similar to the ones they put up outside pubs at closing time. "Please respect your neighbours!"

I disagree - you may feel differently if you had to live next to thoughtless neighbours who allow their kids to play out on the street all the time so you have to endure endless ball thumping and shouting. Great way to spend your sunday. Not to mention the kids treating your and your surrounding neighbours gardens like their own and constantly trampling all over them to retrieve balls without even asking. The trouble is kids aren't allowed to venture further than the outside of their houses and parents are too lazy to take them anywhere. This woman should definitely have offered to pay up by some means or another. If the child had been correctly supervised and/or taken to play somewhere sensible it would never have happened therefore it is bad parenting, not an accident and clearly her responsibility.

Kiko4564

marklv wrote: »

Anyway, the neighbour definitely should pay, no question about it. Take her to the small claims court.

I would be so angry in this situation, I would demand some sort of compensation or apology and use legal action against the neighbour, unless they were vunerbable, e.g. old ladies.

trose_2

Irv_the_Swerve wrote: »

If you have Legal Cover on your motor policy then your insurers will use legal means to recover your excess if the accident is indisputably not your fault. Only then will you retain your No Claims Discount. If your neighbour has House Insurance then this can be used for your insurer to make a claim against and recover their costs.
Most House Insurance covers the occupants against 3rd party claims for accidents- it might not if the breakage is deliberate in which case it falls into Criminal damage and would be a police matter

As previously mentioned by a couple of us, if the claim was made under the windscreen section of the policy (which is likely) the Insurer will NOT make any attempt to recover either their outlay OR your excess, nor will the No Claims Bonus be affected. In addition, as also previously mentioned, the household policy will have a much higher excess than the original amount of £50.

Herbyme

toffeecoated wrote: »

The neighbour should pay but if she can't afford it there is no point pursuing it. People say make her pay a weekly amount but what they don't understand is poor people pay for everything weekly or monthly. I have been in that situation and i can tell you by the time direct debits and standing orders had been taken i had nothing left. I was forced to live on my credit card. When that cycle starts it is very difficult to get out of debt. Sometimes can't afford it means exactly that. Next time insure things properly (no excess) and don't just look for the cheapest option.

Ouch! Virtually all insurance has some excess, it's not fair to say that insurance with an excess is not 'proper' or that someone has jusst looked for the cheapest option, it's always a balance. Of course it's possible she's living on the bread line but at least could offer some other kind of help eg babysitting or something.

Signs that say 'no ball games' are a real problem for parents in disadvantaged areas, who are then slagged off because their kids are overweight cos they can't play footie without being told off, or even brought home by the police. OTT. We need proper places for kids to play, and parents can't always supervise kids of eg 12 or 13 years old, it's just unrealistic especially if they have younger kids too or if they work.

My son opened our car door into another car as we parked at a leisure complex. There was a small mark on their door. I left a note under their wiper with an apology and our details. We spent an uncomfortable hour or two wondering what they would have done when we got back. We found a note ssaying thanks for being honest and not to worry. We were very relieved and our son had an example of how being honest is not a foolish thing to do. I know it might not have worked out that way but I couldn't have done anything else. (my DH wanted to move the car and pretend nothing had happened!)

plimsoll

Tricia_Mc wrote: »

If I were the person who had my window broken I would want an apology and some form of redress from the child who broke the window, plus some kind of acknowledgement from the child's mother that the child had caused damage which had to be paid for or compensated somehow. I would try being reasonable and friendly (but firm), and try to explain why I thought it was important that the child made some kind of restitution, to learn that damage has to be paid for. I would suggest £1 a week from the child's pocket money for 10 weeks + a few hours closely supervised labour (polishing the car windows?). I would not insist on the full £50 unless I was as badly off financially as the other family. If the mother did not agree, I would tell her that I was disappointed that she was missing a chance to put her child on the right path in life, and leave it at that (hoping not to start a vendetta).

what makes you think the child gets pocket money, or that if he does it's £1 or over????

jogu

sammyh82 wrote: »

which will cost £75 & then you'll be £125 down as they won't pay that!

The moneyclaimonline fee is £25 for claims upto £300.

If they don't pay they'll have an unsatisfied CCJ left against them for the next 6 years, which will likely prevent them getting (or make it more expensive to get) credit cards, mortgages, finance for a car, renting from a landlord and possibly even stop them getting contract mobile phones. The 25 would be added to the amount they have to pay.

mr-tom_2

Heck yes they should pay. If they can't come up with £50 to cover the damages, they shouldn't have kids in the first place (or at least shouldn't allow them to play where they can cause a lot of damage - £50 is cheap...)

One option would be to show the neighbour this discussion thread...

jamkid2001

My son broke a car window when he was 11, the driver reported the incident to the school who gave my son a note to take home to me. The note never made it home, so the option to make amends privately disappeared.
The driver then called in the police causing my son to be arrested for criminal damage. the driver refused a private offer she wanted her day in court and felt let down by the previous lack of response.
The magistrate fined my son £30 paid out of his pocket money and I was told to pay damages and court costs of £250.
The windscreen was on £133.00
Moral make an offer to pay, be generous and be reasonable. it may cost you less in the long run.

sammyh82

erinus wrote: »

Trying to get £50 from them will only cost you money and what's the point if the window has already been satifactorily replaced.

I completely agree!!! its sad but true

ashleypride

Kiko4564 wrote: »

I would be so angry in this situation, I would demand some sort of compensation or apology and use legal action against the neighbour, unless they were vunerbable, e.g. old ladies.

Legal action is not an option, it's too costly to claim such a low amount and it's far from a guaranteed win. (As it was an accident, it is quite possible that legally the parent/son are NOT liable)

Ethically, morally the mother should of paid straight away there's no excuse not to.