Son damaged neighbours car. Advice please

chuckles1066

thesaint wrote: »

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

I guess most posters on here are UK-based?

And if you read some of some of what gets posted, it gives you a quite fascinating insight into exactly why the UK is rotting away.

Ellie2758

chuckles1066 wrote: »

I guess most posters on here are UK-based?

And if you read some of some of what gets posted, it gives you a quite fascinating insight into exactly why the UK is rotting away.

Not like it was in 1066 is it Chuckles? :rotfl:

chuckles1066

loftus wrote: »

It was an accident - even your generation had them!

Oh yes, lots of them.

But the concept that "it must be someone else's fault" or "it's ok, someone else can pay" or "I can make some money out of this, where's Claims Direct's number?" didn't exist in my day.

Accidents happened. We fell off of our bikes and cut our knees........we got up, dusted ourselves off and carried on. And when we got home, mum put a plaster on the scab and life carried on.

But when I read stories of kids biting into "flame-grilled" burgers and burning their poor, precious tongues and the chav-parents suing the chain, I despair for the future............

It's a flame-grilled burger for Christ's sake, at what point did you not expect it to be hot?

vickyj

chuckles1066 wrote: »

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.

Are you a complete fruit cake!!!
there is a whole world of difference the thought patterns of a driver and a SEVEN YEAR OLD BOY!!!!!!!!! a child of this age has no idea of event patterns it is nothing like a driver intentionally taking a risk that they have been fully educated about/seen evidence of.

and let me guess...... bring back hanging.... bring back national service May i remind you that it was thought patterns like yours that led to years of children being mistreated because they were scared people would blame them.

nearlyrich

chuckles1066 wrote: »

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.

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.

I don't need or want to change my stance

I like to think I am a model citizen, I work hard, pay my taxes, brought up two well behaved children who have never thrown a brick at a car ever:p

The mum posted first off that she was paying for the damage and that to me indicates that she wasn't disputing that her son was responsible.

Then she asked ( on a money saving saving site);) if there was any insurance policy that might cover the damage, because like most people she doesn't have £350 lying around for unexpected expenses.

The child was not in her care when this happened, he was playing with a schoolfriend in his backyard where the brick came from that went over the fence and damaged the car.

The other child's mother also took responsibility and was willing to pay half the cost of the damage but has since discovered that the household insurance might cover the damage.

The child is 7 years old, in the eyes of the law he is NOT RESPONSIBLE for his actions and if the mums were not willing to take responsibility the owner of the car would either have to pay himself or claim on his insurance.

Nowhere have I posted that I think they shouldn't pay, if you had read the post before commenting you would not be in the position of making your self look like someone who can't read;) or doesn't know when to stop digging:rolleyes:

thesaint

chuckles1066 wrote: »

I guess most posters on here are UK-based?

And if you read some of some of what gets posted, it gives you a quite fascinating insight into exactly why the UK is rotting away.

I'm of dual nationality.

But I do understand some of the intricate details of the 'British'.
I note the famous use of British irony in your username.

chuckles1066

vickyj wrote: »

Are you a complete fruit cake!!!
there is a whole world of difference the thought patterns of a driver and a SEVEN YEAR OLD BOY!!!!!!!!!

Vicks, please try and keep up.

This isn't personal BTW.

I didn't introduce the analogy between your child and an adult driver; I merely extrapolated the point.

If you have issues, please take it up with nearlyrich who introduced the relationship.

loftus

As has been pointed out the children are way below the age of criminal responsibility so negligence doesn't come into it. If we use your analogy of a driver driving at 70mph around a blind bend and crashing - they would still meet the cost of the accident from their insurance. Presumabely you would not object to them claiming from a policy they have paid for and which is there specifically to cover this eventuality.
The mother of the other child may be able to use her insurance to cover the damage to the car and Vickyj will contribute towards the cost of this. If it is a reasonable claim then the insurance company will pay out. The mother will "pay" through increased premiums in future.
This has nothing to do with the ambulance chasing culture that exists now - and exists because there are companies promoting their businesses and promoting claims.

changkra

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Oh yes, lots of them.

But the concept that "it must be someone else's fault" or "it's ok, someone else can pay" or "I can make some money out of this, where's Claims Direct's number?" didn't exist in my day.

Accidents happened. We fell off of our bikes and cut our knees........we got up, dusted ourselves off and carried on. And when we got home, mum put a plaster on the scab and life carried on.

But when I read stories of kids biting into "flame-grilled" burgers and burning their poor, precious tongues and the chav-parents suing the chain, I despair for the future............

It's a flame-grilled burger for Christ's sake, at what point did you not expect it to be hot?

I have to wonder just exactly how much you are getting out of causing an argument on this thread :rolleyes: I also wonder how many people you have pushed away from you with your attitude. maybe you need to get out more :rotfl:

benood

chuckles1066 wrote: »

Vicks, please try and keep up.

This isn't personal BTW.

I didn't introduce the analogy between your child and an adult driver; I merely extrapolated the point.

If you have issues, please take it up with nearlyrich who introduced the relationship.

You are a sanctimonious, patronising individual (or was that troll).

It must be wonderful being someone who has never put a foot wrong in their life, congratulations, now please stop baiting the OP.