son hit neighbours car

elvis86

ShAnE wrote: »

Try quoting like for like if you're going to be so childish.

I'd put being burgled on par with the car being stolen.
Or to someone disturbing the foundations to someone blowing up your car.
In this case, someone kicked a ball over the garden fence knocking over one of your gnomes. Or at least that would be the case if the car wasnt ilegally parked.
So the accurate example would be someone kicking a ball over the fence and it hitting the roof of your shed, causing the heat lamps used to keep your illegal plants warm, to break.

Surely that's a consequence of shed ownership, as opposed to home ownership..?:D

Perhaps a better example would be the 6 year old next door smashing your front window with a football. Would I expect the parents to pay for the damage? Absolutely. Would I offer to pay if the child was mine. Absolutely.

I'd love to see where you would suggest accomodating the 100s of cars that would be displaced in my parents' village alone if you were to enforce rules around parking partly on the pavement?

elvis86

pineapple wrote: »

I used to be a sheltered housing warden and my tenants were always having problems with cars half parked on the pavement - especially those in electric wheelchairs. We did talk to police about it who however were loath to move people off the pavement as the road in question was so narrow, if everyone parked fully on the road, emergency vehicles would not get through.

Thankfully the police have more common sense than half of the people on here.;)

People have cars. They often need them for work etc. They need somewhere to park them.

If it's a quiet narrow residential street, and the choice is between blocking the road versus reducing the width of the pavement (whilst still allowing space for most pedestrians to pass), it's obvious to me that the former is the best compromise.

I'm sure the disabled neighbour would be thrilled if everyone parked a mile away, leaving the pavements 100% clear. However, she may not be quite as thrilled that she's had to park her mobility car a mile away too. And less pleased still if people have avoided parking on the pavement but have blocked the road instead, so that the ambulance she needs can't gain access.

Gillyx

In the one residential area I know of with loads of cars I would say 90% of the houses have done away with their front gardens completely, put tarmac down and are now parking their 2/3 cars where the garden used to be. Sensible I say.

On the other hand, we phoned the traffic warden people today about people parking where they shouldn't in our street. 3 cars each with £50 fines should make them re-think about it. 4 wheels on the pavement, I think not.

janninew

jackie_w wrote: »

Many thanks for everyones replies.

Last night another neighbour chapped my door to say she heard about my son hitting the car. She said she has already complained to the police about he guy parking on the pavement, and the Police did pay him a visit.

The space on the pavement was NOT enough for someone on a bike, or a pram or a wheelchair to pass. I have taken photos of this.

The reason the parked cars wasnt an issue for me was because it is a few doors down (5 to be exact) and my sonn has just started to play with a little boy just down from that. It never entered my mind to say to the guy about his car being parked on the pavement (dont think it would matter anyway seeing as the police have already visited him and he still parks his car half on the pavement and half on the road)

I found out today that I have legal cover on my household insurance, so i spoke them, they have advised if my neighbour decides to take out a civil action they can defend it because he shouldnt have had his car on the pavement at all. So we will wait and see what happens.

Oh and people where asking what kind of scooter it was, it was a kids scooter that was bought out of Argos

I don't understand, the OP says there wasn't enough space for a person on a bike to pass through, how was the little boy ever suppose to pass the car then without causing damage even before he fell?

I don't agree that cars should block the entire pavement, I do accept sometimes you can park 2 wheels on the pavement and still have plenty of room for double prams etc. If the pavement is blocked, I don't think you are allowed to damage a car just because it shouldn't be there. A neighbour's son parks over my drive every time he visits and blocks me in, should I then just ram his car out the way with mine because he shouldn't be there?! Of course not, we can't take the law into our own hands and damage property! If a pavement is totally blocked the police need to be called and informed, I know the OP said this has happened, maybe they need to be called again?

S1976

Hi OP,

I don't see how much damage a 6 year old can do with a small plastic scooter myself, I would have thought more damage would have been done to the childs scooter rather than the car However I would be tempted to go 50/50 if it's not to much rather than claim on insurances, but if he comes back with a daft high amount go through insurances.

On a side note - I do agree cars need to park partially on the footpath on some narrow streets,
Isn't it the local councils who are in charge of this?

Imp

Imp wrote: »

I did once live on a narrow Victorian street where, to accomodate people's cars, they were parked on and blocked the pavements. The convention in the area was for pedestrians to use the road, and for vehicles and pedestrians to co-operate when they met.

The majority of people tend to muddle on by, and generally work together to overcome these small inconveniences. Those who get on their high horses just end up stressed and unhappy.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=chester&hl=en&ll=53.19437,-2.870924&spn=0.00111,0.00284&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.86435,46.538086&vpsrc=6&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.194424,-2.870791&panoid=sGP1-T4Oeu8Jp2_aotLnug&cbp=12,239.79,,0,6.27

This is the street I used to live on where people parked on the pavement and walked down the road. It was an excellent compromise given the circumstances. The road was a dead end, so only residents drove along it, and always at a slow speed.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Walton+Way,+Aylesbury&hl=en&ll=51.812874,-0.793568&spn=0.001146,0.00284&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=17.86435,46.538086&vpsrc=6&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.812874,-0.793568&panoid=KKCkmj1y8CZnW-d4zjwrfg&cbp=12,307.16,,0,0

Here is an alternative example of someone parking on a pavement which is less acceptable, but it is possible to pass between the parked car and the fence

thegirlintheattic

birkee wrote: »

Yeh.... they must fit them with smaller engines so they can't exceed 20mph!.... "Out of control scooter"?
What sort of image do you have in your head?

They weigh nothing, and usually have plastic handle protection on them.
Doubt they would cause a sizeable dent even if you threw it at the car.
Do you have any engineering / mechanical experience at all? Your post seems more emotional than knowledgable.

The fact that my niece recently dented my uncle's car with one of those little 3 wheeled tricycles. She's 3 and was pushing it along with her feet.

The scooter was likely going faster than that, considering it had a mobile 6-year old on it.

It it was 'in control' it wouldn't have crashed would it? I was meaning you had a situation where the child was in the process of falling off it when it hit the car.

Car bodywork is very easily dented, it's a safety feature. Certain points are more surseptable than others as well.

birkee

Imp wrote: »

Do we have to submit CVs and two references before being allowed to disagree with you?

When educational qualifications are used to overide my opinion, yes.
What am I supposed to do, grovel before a higher authority?

birkee

thegirlintheattic wrote: »

The fact that my niece recently dented my uncle's car with one of those little 3 wheeled tricycles. She's 3 and was pushing it along with her feet.

The scooter was likely going faster than that, considering it had a mobile 6-year old on it.

It it was 'in control' it wouldn't have crashed would it? I was meaning you had a situation where the child was in the process of falling off it when it hit the car.

Car bodywork is very easily dented, it's a safety feature. Certain points are more surseptable than others as well.

Some safety feature, when the crumple zone won't stand up to a childs scooter accident. The occupants would be strawberry jam in a head on collision.
Apart from which, the crumple zone is designed to work along the cars length, not along the side of the car.
The doors are NOT part of a crumple zone, as they protect the driver / passengers.
Thats why I brought up your experience to judge.
Interesting that your Niece popped up after the original post don't you think?

HangTime

thunderbird wrote: »

I don't understand why choosing the right thing to do should be dependent on the cost of the repairs?

Because the "right thing to do" may be a bit of a grey area.
Lets consider two scenarios:

1) The damage is relatively minor and can be fixed for under £100
2) The damage is relatively serious and will cost over £500 to repair

Under scenario 1, even if the OP doesn't consider themselves liable, it may be that they would be willing to cough up the cash to maintain good relations with the neighbour and settle the matter quickly.

Under scenario 2, if the family is hard up the impact of an unexpected bill for over £500 could be significant, in terms of how it would affect the family. Maybe it would mean having to sell assets, cancel the child's birthday party/holiday/school trip/whatever, default on a debt or whatever. In this scenario, the family may decide that the negative impact on their family from that bill is too much to bear, and they would rather dispute the 'claim'.