Child Keyed car, claim?

150940

Guest101 wrote: »

That link does not clarify that point at all.


And negligence in such a case is quite simple. Did you know where your child was? No. Well you should have.

For starters it's not their child.

foxy-stoat

In this information, child means someone aged under 14 and young person means someone aged 14 or over but under 18. A Parent means someone with parental responsibility.

Criminal proceedings

A child under ten is not considered to be capable of deciding whether an action is right or wrong. They cannot be taken to court and charged with a criminal offence. If you are aged ten but under 14 years old you are considered to be responsible for a criminal offence and are treated in the same way as any young person under 18. This means that you can face criminal proceedings, although your case will normally be dealt with in a youth court.

Negligence

As a child or young person you can be sued for negligence through your parent. Negligence is defined as failure to act with reasonable care thus causing damage to other people or property. An injured party has the right to sue for compensation. An example of negligence is riding a bicycle in a manner which results in personal injury or damage to property.
When taking court action against a child or young person for negligence, the person taking action (the claimant) should name the child or young person as the defendant and a parent or guardian who can act as the litigation friend (next friend in Northern Ireland).
The age of the child or young person will be taken into account when deciding whether behaviour is negligent. There is no point in someone suing a young person who does not have money unless, for example, the young person is insured. However, someone who successfully sues a child or young person aged under 16 may wait until the child is working before enforcing the judgment. Judgments must be enforced within six years.
A parent can be held liable for their child’s negligence if the parent failed to take reasonable care to see that the child did not cause harm to others.


I am no solicitor but I see it as, a child under 14 but over 10 can be made responsible for a criminal offence.
If the OP wants to be re-embursed for the damaged caused then a child cannot be made to pay damages until they start work - the OP has 6 years to make a claim against the child, assuming they could afford to pay once they start work.
OP could sue the parent if they can prove negligence, the parents' home insurance policy may cover it, or the agencey that placed the foster child there.


I think it gives the OP some information to make an informed decision as to how to proceed and the likelihood of getting re-embursed for the damage caused.

Proving negligence and that the child in question did it is far from simple.

150940

foxy-stoat wrote: »

In this information, child means someone aged under 14 and young person means someone aged 14 or over but under 18. A Parent means someone with parental responsibility.

Criminal proceedings

A child under ten is not considered to be capable of deciding whether an action is right or wrong. They cannot be taken to court and charged with a criminal offence. If you are aged ten but under 14 years old you are considered to be responsible for a criminal offence and are treated in the same way as any young person under 18. This means that you can face criminal proceedings, although your case will normally be dealt with in a youth court.

Negligence

As a child or young person you can be sued for negligence through your parent. Negligence is defined as failure to act with reasonable care thus causing damage to other people or property. An injured party has the right to sue for compensation. An example of negligence is riding a bicycle in a manner which results in personal injury or damage to property.
When taking court action against a child or young person for negligence, the person taking action (the claimant) should name the child or young person as the defendant and a parent or guardian who can act as the litigation friend (next friend in Northern Ireland).
The age of the child or young person will be taken into account when deciding whether behaviour is negligent. There is no point in someone suing a young person who does not have money unless, for example, the young person is insured. However, someone who successfully sues a child or young person aged under 16 may wait until the child is working before enforcing the judgment. Judgments must be enforced within six years.
A parent can be held liable for their child’s negligence if the parent failed to take reasonable care to see that the child did not cause harm to others.


I am no solicitor but I see it as, a child under 14 but over 10 can be made responsible for a criminal offence.
If the OP wants to be re-embursed for the damaged caused then a child cannot be made to pay damages until they start work - the OP has 6 years to make a claim against the child, assuming they could afford to pay once they start work.
OP could sue the parent if they can prove negligence, the parents' home insurance policy may cover it, or the agencey that placed the foster child there.


I think it gives the OP some information to make an informed decision as to how to proceed and the likelihood of getting re-embursed for the damage caused.

Proving negligence and that the child in question did it is far from simple.

You seem to be mixing criminal and civil law here.

foxy-stoat

Yes, the OP wanted answers to his questions, one was "is it legally right" and the other was "how to I claim".

Bit rare on these parts, getting answers to questions you ask not to ones you didnt.

150940

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Yes, the OP wanted answers to his questions, one was "is it legally right" and the other was "how to I claim".

Bit rare on these parts, getting answers to questions you ask not to ones you didnt.

Well if the kid don't admit it and the police don't have a statement putting him in for the damage he has his answer.

It's legally right and he claims on his insurance.

movilogo

Get a quote for your next year's premium by opening a fake account (very similar to yours) and putting a claim for vandalism.

Check how much your premium goes up. Say £x

Take a quote from garage how much to fix by yourself. Say £y

if x < y, claim from insurance.

Sometimes you just need to make use of insurance. Life is not fair, get used to it (not my quote, someone else's but forgotten whose )

bod1467

Divide X by 3 ... Note A
Divide A by 3 ... Note B
Divide B by 3 ... Note C

Z = X + A + B + C

If Z < Y then claim on insurance. (I'm being generous ... divide by 2 instead of 3 to be conservative)

The effect on insurance is not just the one year.

WellKnownSid

I am absolutely astonished that the first thing anyone considers about this is going to the police / having their day in court to 'resolve' things. A child is in foster care, not because of the unfortunate accident where Mater and Pater were tragically killed on the slopes of St Tropez leaving little Tommy a rich orphan, but almost certainly because they come from a violent, abusive or neglectful home.

I see you have two options.

Option one - go to the police, social services and/or court. Have your day in court. Probably get nothing back. If you're lucky, and do get something back, you'll almost certainly convince either social services / or the carers or both to move the looked-after child on - to a new home. The child then learns that their behaviour can get them moved on, so they continue to key more cars as it becomes the ultimate expression of control. They flip-flop between short-term foster placements and children's homes until they become an adult, at which point they move from petty crime and drug/alcohol abuse to more serious crimes where people get badly hurt or worse.

Option two - work with the carer and the child. Discuss ways you and they can help the child understand what they have done. Understand that the child's behaviour was founded in a painful / hurtful life totally different from your own upbringing, one that you very probably could never even imagine. Understand that this often manifests as different values which will only be reinforced by behaviour such as your expression of anger and upset. Understand that a positive intervention may only have 0.001% chance of changing behaviour in the child but that it's 10,000% better if it helps prevent another crime statistic later on.

Yes, unfortunately you'll have to claim on your insurance - but that's what it's there for.

warehouse

WellKnownSid wrote: »

I am absolutely astonished that the first thing anyone considers about this is going to the police / having their day in court to 'resolve' things. A child is in foster care, not because of the unfortunate accident where Mater and Pater were tragically killed on the slopes of St Tropez leaving little Tommy a rich orphan, but almost certainly because they come from a violent, abusive or neglectful home.

I see you have two options.

Option one - go to the police, social services and/or court. Have your day in court. Probably get nothing back. If you're lucky, and do get something back, you'll almost certainly convince either social services / or the carers or both to move the looked-after child on - to a new home. The child then learns that their behaviour can get them moved on, so they continue to key more cars as it becomes the ultimate expression of control. They flip-flop between short-term foster placements and children's homes until they become an adult, at which point they move from petty crime and drug/alcohol abuse to more serious crimes where people get badly hurt or worse.

Option two - work with the carer and the child. Discuss ways you and they can help the child understand what they have done. Understand that the child's behaviour was founded in a painful / hurtful life totally different from your own upbringing, one that you very probably could never even imagine. Understand that this often manifests as different values which will only be reinforced by behaviour such as your expression of anger and upset. Understand that a positive intervention may only have 0.001% chance of changing behaviour in the child but that it's 10,000% better if it helps prevent another crime statistic later on.

Yes, unfortunately you'll have to claim on your insurance - but that's what it's there for.

Bring back the birch!

150940

warehouse wrote: »

Bring back the birch!

The lefties won't like that.