Child on bike damaged my car. Advice

Quentin

Haza wrote: »

.... The damage is about the same as my excess, just over £600. So not sure its worth taking a hit on long term premiums increase.

If the damage is going to cost the same as your excess then it's pointless contemplating an insurance claim ( as you will have a claim on your record yet have had to pay the bill yourself anyway!)

OnanTheBarbarian

Karma. You know where the geezer lives right?

Biggles

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Half penny worth ..misplaced the apostrophe

Nearly there. It's normally spelt ha'porth.
;-)

Haza

Thanks for all the advice. Decided to get the car fixed out of my own pocket and will see if its worth the extra £70 to go to small claims and represent myself with the evidence I have.

d70cw6

i advocate going for the tit-for-tat escalating vandalism of each other property until lives are lost approach personally.

Quentin

Haza wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice. Decided to get the car fixed out of my own pocket and will see if its worth the extra £70 to go to small claims and represent myself with the evidence I have.

The court fees alone will be at least £140 for a hearing, (for a claim of £600), and if you lose you will also have to pay the defendant's allowable expenses and loss of earnings attending the hearing, so do get some legal advice on your chances before making a decision

lisyloo

If you wrote a letter with the legal facts there's a chance that the father is a decent bloke, checks and realises you are right and pays up.
I think it's worth a letter being factual and polite (remember the father will have to admit he's wrong so if you are too harsh then it might backfire).
I believe most people are honest and decent and what he said at the time may have been a knee jerk reaction so as to not incriminate himself.
Of course if he says no you may have to just accept that it's too expensive and too much hassle to pursue, but I think it's worth a letter.

Archergirl

Would the father be covered by his house ins? Sometimes there is extra stuff with it.

lisyloo

The insurance would only pay out of the father was liable and he's only liable if negligent.
They may not do so voluntarily and still might need to be taken to court, so costs and risks involved.
The only plus is that if the father is a worker/home owner rather than soneobe on benefits of a vagrant then he probably has the means to pay.

KerrBearrxo

Aretnap wrote: »

The father is correct - he is not liable for his child's actions. Many people might feel a moral obligation to pay in his shoes - but it's a matter of good manners rather than legal liability.

In theory you could sue then child, but (a) you'd have to prove that his standard of care fell below that expected of a reasonable child, which is lower than the standard expected of an adult and (b) his pocket money might not be enough to pay for the damage, even if you won.

Sensible advice? If it's minor damage fix it yourself, if it's major damage claim in your insurance. It's certainly annoying, but I'm afraid it's just one of those things.

Really? I always thought parents were liable for their children until the age of 18! That's so stupid....

He could take them to small claims court could he not?