son hit neighbours car

Imp

We seem to have gone off topic here. There was no pedestrian involved in this incident. There was a stationary car and a scooter.

Lifes_Grand_Plan

My humble opinion FWIW, ok maybe the car shouldn't have been on the pavement, but two wrongs don't make a right... if the car being on the pavement was causing you problems then you should have reported it at the time. Using it now as an excuse to get out of paying for damage by the OP's son would be out of order IMO.

I think if the OP refuses to pay the full bill then it is going to leave one mighty peeved off neighbour, who in the absence of evidence to the contrary works hard to afford nice cars and then someone comes along and damages them... put yourself in his shoes.

Will be interesting to see what happens though, will watch with interest.

carolan78

I wouldn't be offering to pay either. It was an accident, it could have been done by another child falling sue to lack of space for all you know. Someone made a good point on the insurance if you put his registration number into this website you can check the insurance database the police use http://ownvehicle.askmid.com/

madjay

I have just been wondering that all of you who said they would not pay, how many of you would demand money for repairs if a child had damage their car, just do the right thing and pay for the damage.

elvis86

Where do most of you self-righteous folk live? Presumably on residential roads that are as wide as dual carriageways..?

I grew up in a cul-de-sac on a residential estate (my parents still live there). Every house has a driveway, but most also have more than one car (at least 2, perhaps 3 where neighbours are self-employed with a van or where there are adult children at home).

If everyone who parked their car in the street was to park entirely on the road, there would be a gap of approximately 3 feet down the centre of the street! It's entirely impractical.

I don't believe that parking on/off the pavement is a black-and-white issue. In a quiet residential street, parking half on the pavement makes more sense and causes everyone less inconvenience, IMO.

RE this issue with the damage to this guy's car; whilst I appreciate people's points about the number of cars he has etc, I can't help but think that the usual extreme-MSE crowd are out. The crowd who don't only want to save money, they want to avoid at all costs paying out for anything, regardless of whether they are morally obliged to.:cool:

With the obvious condition that the guy didn't take the p!ss, I would pay up. Surely it can't cost that much, how much damage can a 6 year old on a scooter actually do?

Lifes_Grand_Plan

carolan78 wrote: »

I wouldn't be offering to pay either. It was an accident

Are you saying if a child kicked a football through a window of yours and broke it that you would just shrug it off....

or if someone reversed their car over your pet dog by accident...

or someone skateboarding on the pavement knocked your buggy over and knocked your child out onto the pavement its ok.... it was an accident????

Extreme examples maybe but the point stands, it may well have been an accident but damage has been caused to someone's property which needs to be paid for.

pinkshoes

Trying to think from a 6 year olds point of view, he was riding along on his scooter, and faced the challenge of getting through a small gap due to a car blocking a large section of the pavement, during which he lost his nerve which made him wobble and fall off.

(in the same way that it's easy to walk along a plank of wood on the floor, but put it 2 metres in the air, and most would fall off!)

Under these circumstances, I really don't think it's fair for the car owner to ask you to pay, as his car is parked too far onto the pavement if the gap won't fit a wheelchair or pram through.

If he does insist on you paying, I would compromise and pay half, and then ask him to no longer park his cars on the pavement so that it won't happen again.

RacyRed

elvis86 wrote: »

how much damage can a 6 year old on a scooter actually do?

Exactly. how much damage can a 6 y/o on a toy scooter cause to a metal car?

If I knew I'd parked in such an inconsiderate way that it may have caused a child to fall off his toy scooter, I'd be apologising to his parents, not asking them to pay for the damage.

If it isn't safe to park completely on the road it isn't safe to park in that spot, full stop! Find somewhere safe to park and walk a few yards. Who gave drivers the right to put their convenience before the safety of pedestrians?

I think this guy is trying it on. If it was me I would be inspecting the damage to the car to see if it matches with damage to the child's scooter. If the toy scooter wasn't damaged after contact with a car then I'd be very suspicious of this neighbour's claim. I'd also be asking the little one to show me what happened when he fell.

If the child was trying to negotiate around the car sticking out of the drive onto the pavement and hit the car parked on the pavement as a result, the neighbour would be told in no uncertain terms where to go.

Someone who parks in such an inconsiderate fashion is asking for incidents of this kind. The car owner should accept the results of the risks he chooses to take.

elvis86

RacyRed wrote: »

Exactly. how much damage can a 6 y/o on a toy scooter cause to a metal car?

If I knew I'd parked in such an inconsiderate way that it may have caused a child to fall off his toy scooter, I'd be apologising to his parents, not asking them to pay for the damage.

If it isn't safe to park completely on the road it isn't safe to park in that spot, full stop! Find somewhere safe to park and walk a few yards. Who gave drivers the right to put their convenience before the safety of pedestrians?

But if, like my parents, you live on a narrow residential street, there may not necessarily be anywhere better to park a few yards away? And if there is, there will no doubt be other people competing for the same spot. In fact, as every street on my parents' estate is just as narrow, and the rest of the village is mainly Victorian terraces with no off-street parking, you'd have to drive a mile or so to find anywhere where parking entirely in the road was practical (you'd probably end up parking in a field!).

RacyRed wrote: »

Someone who parks in such an inconsiderate fashion is asking for incidents of this kind. The car owner should accept the results of the risks he chooses to take.

And presumably, if he parked entirely in the road, leaving a narrow gap between his car and the opposite kerb/a car parked on the other side of the road, he should also expect his car to be hit by another motorist struggling to get through?:cool:

Although the guy in question has 5 cars, a lot of people with just one car (and no driveway), and most households with 2 cars (where they can only fit one on their driveway) will face the same problem, so even that isn't necessarily relevant.

Whilst I'm not advocating completely blocking the pavement on a busy road, I think that on quiet residential streets, parking half on the pavement really isn't such a despicably selfish thing to do.

If you had the choice of:

a) parking entirely in the road, leaving the pavement clear but effectively blocking your entire street for vehicles

b) parking half on the pavement, leaving (admittedly reduced) space for folk to walk

or

c) parking a mile away from your house in a field

which would you choose?

sassyblue

I think hes got a nerve to park on pavements and then expect people to pay up if cars are damaged.

There's no need to fall out with him, just tell him politely but firmly he shouldn't park on pavements, if the car wasn't there your son wouldn't have hit it.

I despise the compensation culture but if he gets arsey tell him your son is injured and you'll be putting in a compo claim, you won't see him for dust.