son hit neighbours car

thunderbird

By not saying anything now I think it looks like you are agreeing with him and are happy to pay for the repairs.

If you don't know him well enough to know if he can be trusted I would be wary of his getting an estimate - I would imagine he is probably a regular at garages with that number of cars and there's a chance they may be willing to do a dodgy deal with him? If you are going to pay, may be worth asking him to get more than 1 estimate.

Nicki

Did it happen today? If so, I would take a photograph now of how the cars are parked, the space on the pavement and the damage to the car. Then do nothing until you see the estimate, and discuss it with your husband.

Personally, if my child damaged something I would offer to pay, but if you can't afford to, and the neighbour is equally at fault, I can see why you might not feel you should, and I wouldn't say that was an unreasonable position to take either.

thunderbird

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

birkee

dirtysexymonkey wrote: »

you should pay. your son damaged his car. if you dont pay you'll be liable to get a reputation as will your son. your neighbours been nice about this. if you cant afford to pay for the damage, you shouldnt be allowing your son out with something that can cause damage.

Isn't it lucky, the car didn't damage her Son!

If I was the OP, I'd counter claim because her Son hurt himself.
The car should not have been on the pavement, maybe next time a wheelchair can scrape down his side.
2 doors and 2 wings! Great! His problem.
5 vehicles in a domestic situation, antisocial, because it restricts parking available for other residents.
If he can say s*d you! to other residents, surprise surprise if they say the same back to him.

POPPYOSCAR

I am one of those that say if you or yours damage something they should pay up, but I am not saying it in this case.

I am also fed up with cars that park on the pavement. The roads are for cars and the pavement for people. If you son had come off his scooter and gone into the car parked on the road I would say you should pay but I do not think you should in this instance because the car should not have been there.

izoomzoom

My son just got a scooter for his birthday today.

I didn't read much of the manual but did notice this:

"Never ride in traffic or on the street and watch your surroundings for pedestrians bikers, boarders and skaters".

Nothing about watching for cars .....

... and I would be taking a few photographs if the car is still in its original spot.

dirtysexymonkey

jackie_w wrote: »

Sorry where did I say that I didnt want to pay for the damage??? What I said was I didnt know if I could afford to pay for the damage, there is a difference, and if you had read from my previous post where I spoke to a Police officer who said the car shouldnt have been parked partially on the pavement at all.

If the car had been parked wholly on the road, my son wouldnt have caused any damage if he fell

the police dont know what theyre talking about most of the time. it is not illegal to park partly on the pavement. your child has caused damage so you should pay for it. why should your neighbour have to claim on his insurance and then pay increased premiums because you allowed your child to use his scooter on the pavement?

dirtysexymonkey

birkee wrote: »

Isn't it lucky, the car didn't damage her Son!

If I was the OP, I'd counter claim because her Son hurt himself.
The car should not have been on the pavement, maybe next time a wheelchair can scrape down his side.
2 doors and 2 wings! Great! His problem.
5 vehicles in a domestic situation, antisocial, because it restricts parking available for other residents.
If he can say s*d you! to other residents, surprise surprise if they say the same back to him.

youd counter claim for that?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

birkee

Imp wrote: »

I'm pretty sure scooters aren't meant to be on pavements. Sounds like 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Go halves.

???? Ridiculous! "Pretty sure"? On what grounds?
Where are they supposed to be? Do you want a child on a plastic 3 wheel bike to ride in the road as well?

Imp

birkee wrote: »

???? Ridiculous! "Pretty sure"? On what grounds?
Where are they supposed to be? Do you want a child on a plastic 3 wheel bike to ride in the road as well?

I think the Highways Act 1835 Section 72 covers this. They should (if you want to follow the law) restrict themselves to highways, byways and bridleways.

The law is, in many respects, an !!!(donkey). Please write to your MP to sort this out at once.