Son damaged neighbours car. Advice please

thesaint

Broken_hearted wrote: »

Why should the car owner pay higher insurance for years because of this. The mothers are going halves to pay and that is best all round, she should be praised for doing the right thing.

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'.

vickyj

chuckles1066 wrote: »

I believe she has already conceded that her child lugged a brick over a 6 foot back wall.

Not entirely sure insurance ever covered deliberate acts of vandalism but, given today's standards, anything's possible.

But let's count our blessings.........the brick could have hit some innocent person minding their own business on the head and killed them.

Eh?

I have strese this point exactly to my child today as the other mum has been doing with her son.
being that they are both 7 they do not yet understand the concept of coincidence, allthough tey ahve had a hard lesson in this over te last two days. they had no intention to commit vandalism and given thier age thinking ahed is not a stong point. he was crying hiseyes out when he got home as he knew he had done wrong but the fact that they were able to tel the truth about what they had done let me know that i was not doing so bad as a parent

changkra

chuckles1066 wrote: »

You mean "someone else should pay"?

Yep, that's about right.

Whatever happened to taking responsibility for the actions of your children?It's a sound concept............it was important in the generation that I was brought up in.

This is exactly what she is doing taking responsibility. She asked a simple question, you forget this a money saving site and she probably doesn't have a great deal of spare cash lying around, Give her a break she doesn't deserve to be got at.

nearlyrich

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Let me guess, you're British aren't you?

I get loads of personal messages flaming me for my anti-British stance even though I'm English.

And then people like you come along and post stuff like that which merely reinforces my view, with proof in black and white, that this country is dying on its feet.

Thank you.

Yada Yada Yada

Kids today all little vandals grr:mad:

Is that better?:rolleyes:

The mother has agreed to pay the bill, she is trying to find out if she might be covered by insurance to reduce the cost...it's doesn't make her an irresponsible parent just asking the question.

Let's make it really simple for you....

If you are driving down the road and you unintentionally hit the car in front would you claim on your insurance for their damage if you were covered? Of course you would, so, by the same principle, if she is covered for damage caused by members of the household to other people's property she should claim.


Maybe she should beat him to within an inch of his life and lock him in his room till he is 37 would that make you feel better?

If only you could admit that you misread the original post :rotfl:

loftus

chuckles1066 wrote: »

The OP needs to take responsibility for her child's actions (a novel concept with the current generation I'll grant you) and cough up.

As both my father and grandfather have told me and from personal experience - the current generation is always moaned about by those that have gone before.
How many times have you heard a sentence beginning "In my day....."

vickyj

I cannot thank the supportive members of the site who have helfully responded in this thread.
The neighbour now thinks that thier house insurance will cover it and if this is the case then i will pay thier exess for them to cover the rise that they will suffer next year.
if there is a change ten i am sure i will be posting again
Thanks guys
vicky

makingendsmeet_2

My mum had a similar experience. The little lad next door was riding his bike past her car (new car only had it 3 days) and fell off causing a lovely designer strip down 3 panels. First she knew about it was a knock at the door from a poor lad in tears. What could she say other than comfort the lad and ask him if he was ok. It doesn't help that his dad is a 6ft 7" black man and a bouncer at the local night club. I can understand that this lad was throwing stones and that makes him far from an angel, but kids are kids. Surely the best way around this is either 50/50 or the insurance. But some people are funny about their cars and treat them as babies rather than just material objects. We all work hard to buy them, but at the end of the day the are so easy to fix or replace. As far as claiming off the insurance effecting others and we all pay, this is nonsense you wouldn't not claim if you needed to because other peoples insurance would go you now would you??

chuckles1066

nearlyrich wrote: »

Let's make it really simple for you....

If you are driving down the road and you unintentionally

Yep.

There's your problem. Right there.

To use your (crude) analogy, a 7 year old (who I presume isn't of abnormal height) chucking a brick over a 6 foot wall is akin to a motorist driving at 70mph around a blind bend. "Unintentional" is irrelevant to the discussion.

i.e neither party knows what's (a) over the wall or (b) around the blind bend.

There's nothing "unintentional" about it. It's negligence. And somehow hoping that "somebody else" can pay for any damage is what's got this country into the mess it's in today.

What if the brick had been a bottle filled with petrol and set alight before being thrown? Negligence or playful high spirits? In such a case, should someone else pay?

Ah ah ah, you can't change your stance now.

Congratulations, you're a model British citizen.

thesaint

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Let me guess, you're British aren't you?

I get loads of personal messages flaming me for my anti-British stance even though I'm English.

And then people like you come along and post stuff like that which merely reinforces my view, with proof in black and white, that this country is dying on its feet.

Thank you.

I know that I will probably regret asking this, but can anyone explain what my Nationality has got to do with this?

loftus

For Gods sake he is SEVEN!!!!!!!!!

They probably had no idea of cause and effect. They were playing a game. If they were 10, 12 or 14 I would agree with your claims of negligence but they weren't they were 7. Plus you have no idea what level of maturity these 7 year olds have as it can vary quite a bit at that age.

It was an accident - even your generation had them!