Son damaged neighbours car. Advice please

scheming_gypsy

me too, but i'm 6'2 and 31, not 7 and 3 foot tall.

gundo

thesaint wrote: »

Because that's the point of insurance.

If I were the neighbour, I would pocket the £700 and claim on the insurance, with my protected 'No claims bonus'.

I would praise her for doing 'The right thing'.

Eh?

You would pocket £450 as you'd have to pay your £250 excess (on my policy) and regardless of protected ncb or not your premiums will raise and you'll have to mention the "fault" claim everytime you renew or are looking for quotes for up to 5 years...

Personally I avoid claiming on my insurance if at all possible. 3 years ago I was struck by an uninsured van and I lost my excess and have a "fault" claim on my policy. It was somewhat irritating to see the recent'ish adverts from DirectLine saying you won't lose your excess or ncb if hit by an uninsured driver, no prizes for guessing who I was insured by at the time. They also made very little effort to trace the the van owner despite having the reg no. and the business' name and address.

milkydrink

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

me too, but i'm 6'2 and 31, not 7 and 3 foot tall.

If you manage to get the brick over the wall, your height (or lack of) would have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on your ability to hit or miss something the otherside.
Just because the boys are short, does not make a brick any the less a brick:rotfl:

scheming_gypsy

but it means i'm tall enough to throw a brick over a wall.. i asked my sister if her 7 year old could throw a brick 6 feet, she said yes.. then went and picked up a brick, came back and said no it's too heavy. then she asked him to throw it, he made barely got it over his head.

milkydrink

The boys said they did it, read her post.

scheming_gypsy

why don't we just keep going over things. Did the boys see the brick hit the car? no they didn't!

end of, simple as.

I'm presuming you believe the bible too because you read it in a book.

Anyway, i'm off down the mental home to argue with more idiots.

Addiscomber

My point was, and remains, that the child wouldn't need to see over the wall to be damn sure that a missile had hit something metallic, such as a car. (As regards the marks and dust, a single brick could well have rebounded and made more than one mark. We haven't even been told that it was a whole brick, just "bricks", which could well include part bricks.)

I can also assure you that my boys would never have admitted to doing something that they hadn't done, just because a stranger said that they had. It was job enough getting them to admit to something that I had seen them do with my own eyes.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

end of, simple as.

In my experience people who resort to writing or saying this recognise that their position is untenable.

thesaint

gundo wrote: »

Eh?

You would pocket £450 as you'd have to pay your £250 excess (on my policy) and regardless of protected ncb or not your premiums will raise and you'll have to mention the "fault" claim everytime you renew or are looking for quotes for up to 5 years...

Personally I avoid claiming on my insurance if at all possible. 3 years ago I was struck by an uninsured van and I lost my excess and have a "fault" claim on my policy. It was somewhat irritating to see the recent'ish adverts from DirectLine saying you won't lose your excess or ncb if hit by an uninsured driver, no prizes for guessing who I was insured by at the time. They also made very little effort to trace the the van owner despite having the reg no. and the business' name and address.

That's the way of the world.

The point I am trying to make is that their is no legal obligation for the OP to pay anything at all.
She is being decent offering to do 'the right thing'.
I haven't claimed on my car insurance in 20 years of driving, but my premiums go up each year regardless.

Insurance serves one purpose, if one chooses to not claim on it, that is your perogative.

In my experience people who resort to writing or saying this recognise that their position is untenable.

Or, they've realised that they are speaking to someone doesn't grasp the finer side of common sense.

OP, enter your son in the 2012 Olympics, with his arm Great Britain will trounce the opposition in the shot put.

Nenen

chuckles1066 wrote: »

My parents paid for my private education thank you very much.

And I have a private health care plan that I pay for so any care I need as an OAP is covered. By me.

You were saying..............?

At the risk of starting this highjack off again, I would just like to point out that the teachers at your private school were probably educated by the state and would definitely have had their university fees paid for by the state plus grants for living expenses paid for by the state (at the time your teachers were being educated we still had a grant system). For 'state' read taxpayers at the time. Therefore, your private education was at a great cost to the state! Similarly, any nurses and doctors treating you in your private hospital would have had all their post 18 education paid for by the state (if not their pre-18 education). Even with the current student loan system, universities are subsidised by the state.

Unless every single service/professional you use has been privately educated (be it dentist, solicitor, bank manager, accountant, waitress, refuse collector or retail worker) then you are indirectly benefiting from state education. The reason why everybody's taxes pay for the education of children, whether or not they have children themselves, is that a well-educated population is of great benefit to the whole community and not just the parents of said children.

To the OP: I'm so sorry you've had this worry and I really hope that you find that the insurance does pay. I currently teach Year 3 (7-8 year olds) and can assure you that all of them do things without thinking through the consequences occasionally. I'm sure your son will have learnt a valuable lesson from this experience.

nadnad

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Big? Well, 5ft 9", 145lbs, I use the gym every day so I didn't think I was big.

Old? 43..........I don't feel old but it's subjective I guess.

It's quite amazing how people can post what is obviously drivel without realising they're doing it?

Can you not see that what you've stated for the world to see is contradictory? You're not the first poster to this thread to fall into this trap which makes me think it's education-related.

If I had children and one of them caused damage to someone else's property, I'd pay for the said damage.

End of. Guess I'm just old-fashioned.......

Education relatated huh? well as you don't know me - at all you do not know to what standard I am educated. I daresay its possibly more than yourself - however I won't get into a competition at the present time.

Have you looked up the meaning of contradictory? What I have stated is certainly not contradictory - the mother of this child has accepted responsibility - ie she has said yes it is my childs fault (partly) and she has said yes lets get this sorted the best way possible - which in this case was to use insurance.

Are you saying you cannot accept resonsibility for something and then use insurance to pay for it? in other words if you drive into the back of someone in order to accept the consequences of your actions you have to pay for that damage yourself? can you not use the insurance which you pay for and which is legally there (in those circumstances) to cover such an event?

The OP has said she cannot afford or that it would be difficult at the minute to find enough money to cover this, and the other party was happy enough to try and put it through their insurance - so I don't see the problem.

If you had children you would pay for the damage they caused - well the OP has already said THAT SHE WILL PAY FOR THE DAMAGE or have you missed that bit?

Dear sir your posts actually have no purpose other than to drive others to distraction with your petty ways and your nonsense talk - hence the comment about you being a BIG OLD TROLL, figuratively speaking of course. or maybe you didnt pick up on that.

And my goodness you're only 43 - you poor thing, with an attitude like yours it must be difficult to know that you have probably another 35-40 years on this planet. I feel quite sorry for people like you, life is a gift and you seem to spend a great deal of it complaining. Its quite sad.