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

sammyh82

jogu wrote: »

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.

I'm fully aware of that & I also know a lot of people that have several outstanding CCJ's that don't pay a penny! you tell the police & they'll tell you its a civil matter, what % of people that 'can't afford to pay back £50 apply for credit cards? a mortgage? or finance on a car or contract phones???
WAKE UP to the world we are living in!!!!!!!!

JayD

Unless you have a very special relationship with this neighbour that you don't want spoilt, I would suggest you approach her again and say that you believe she is legally obliged to pay for the damage her son has caused. If she is not willing to do so, then you will report the matter to the police.

If she still wont part with a penny, then I would pursue the matter via the police - but I hope you have a witness or two.

gjohnson

JoannaS wrote: »

Agree with most of what you say except that cars should be banned from parking on streets??!!!! what is with that??!!

Sorry, I was being deliberately facetious to prove a point. That point being that it is unreasonable in the extreme (frankly ridiculous) to suggest that 'kids should be banned from playing in streets where cars are parked'.

Just about as ridiculous as suggesting that cars should be banned form parking in streets where kids are playing

Daviesje

So where did I go wrong then? Some years back I had a young girl run out between cars and hit my wing mirror as I was sat in the car stationary. While the wing mirror was broken, the main conern for all was the crying girl who had a bruise on her head. Although the thought of compensation did cross my mind, I felt it would be mean to persue as it was an old car and I knew I could get a replacement mirror from the scrapyard for a few pounds. Then imagine my surprise some 10 days later when I got an invoice from the hospital her parents had taken her to for a check-up!

Not directly related to the case here maybe, but my point is that there are many standards in play out there with different people and expecting others to do the same as you would in each situation is just not realistic.

maxwanadoo

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 think you would have a different perspective on ball games if you were sitting in your home and your end wall as the goal post for local football matches. thump, thump, thump. see if you still think it is a good idea after hour after hour, day in, day out. shouting etc does not work. life is miserable.

fullerton_2

Daviesje wrote: »

So where did I go wrong then? Some years back I had a young girl run out between cars and hit my wing mirror as I was sat in the car stationary. While the wing mirror was broken, the main conern for all was the crying girl who had a bruise on her head. Although the thought of compensation did cross my mind, I felt it would be mean to persue as it was an old car and I knew I could get a replacement mirror from the scrapyard for a few pounds. Then imagine my surprise some 10 days later when I got an invoice from the hospital her parents had taken her to for a check-up!

Not directly related to the case here maybe, but my point is that there are many standards in play out there with different people and expecting others to do the same as you would in each situation is just not realistic.

Seriously? I assume you didn't pay it? why the hell would they take her to a private hospital for a check up? or was this in the states?

money247

I feel it rather depends on the child's age. If very young, then one can assume it was a complete accident, and if the parents are poor then maybe accept what the mother says, and don't push for payment. BUT, to my mind, whatever the child's age, I feel the parent does have some sort of responsibility to help with payment, even if it is only a nominal sum. If the child is older, and could reasonably have been expected to be more responsible, what is wrong with paying at least a proportion of the cost, and docking the child's pocket money? Surely nobody is so poor that they don't give their kids something each week? The child could learn a very useful lesson for the future from this incident!

pineapple

If people read the question properly - the issue is not whether the neighbour should pay/contribute, but what the person with the damage should do, the neighbour having refused.
I would counter the argument that she can't afford it with the argument that you can't afford it either.
If you don't have a protected no claims bonus, I would ask for the whole £50 excess, explaining the extra cost to you of losing any no claims and that if you have to go to court, the cost to her could be far greater. I would want the money upfront - if you start messing round with installments, it will be a constant niggle for both of you - with the chance that payments could very well dwindle and cease.
If you are just losing the excess, you could offer to split the cost. Make sure she realises this is a goodwill gesture.
There is nothing worse than kids messing around with a football in a street. Streets are for cars, not kids. But of course, stopping that means taking responsibility for your kids as well as taking them to places they can safely kick a ball around.

Cloudane

Daviesje wrote: »

So where did I go wrong then? Some years back I had a young girl run out between cars and hit my wing mirror as I was sat in the car stationary. While the wing mirror was broken, the main conern for all was the crying girl who had a bruise on her head. Although the thought of compensation did cross my mind, I felt it would be mean to persue as it was an old car and I knew I could get a replacement mirror from the scrapyard for a few pounds. Then imagine my surprise some 10 days later when I got an invoice from the hospital her parents had taken her to for a check-up!

Not directly related to the case here maybe, but my point is that there are many standards in play out there with different people and expecting others to do the same as you would in each situation is just not realistic.

I don't think you did anything wrong at all. It's nice that the girl's wellbeing was given priority, and unfortunate that her parents did that. The best way to improve the world is to lead by example, not to say "well everyone else screws people and lacks compassion so I'll do the same". Carry on as you were

octavio6

THE QUESTION IS "WHAT SHOULD I DO?" NOT WHO SHOULD PAY.

I would take legal advice and act on that!

The parent is responsible for the child’s actions, in my opinion, and ultimately a County Court could enforce payment – I would suggest.

My ‘Household Contents Insurance’ policy includes ‘Legal Protection’ at 39p/week and provides a legal advice telephone service – good value when faced with this type of disagreement!