Son damaged neighbours car

Quentin

Andypandyboy wrote: »

....I don't think the fault for the amount involved lies with the owners of the car.

Sometimes you end up having to pay yourself despite being totally blameless in an incident that results in a loss. Its what insurance is for.


(Though in this case who was it who parked on the pavement?)

Quentin

Andypandyboy wrote: »

There may be no legal liability, but there is a moral imperative,......

This forum is for money saving advice, not to discuss any morality issue.

Andypandyboy

Quentin wrote: »

This forum is for money saving advice, not to discuss any morality issue.

Ok, let's extrapolate that out.;)

Which type of wire would be the best but cheapest to string across the stairs to ensure someone could claim on an insurance policy?

I doubt I would get many answers about the pros and cons of wire if I posted that.....

All posts are put through our own morality checkers when we respond, that is human nature.

This one is no different.

Ironically, you then go on to demonstrate that point for me re parking on the pavement.

Save
Save

martinthebandit

Quentin wrote: »

This forum is for money saving advice, not to discuss any morality issue.

Really? I haven't seen many threads discussing the best ways to rob granny and the like.

Of course morality issues are involved, they are part of every decision.

Retrogamer

If you want to save money, as mentioned let them try and prove negligence and refuse to pay.

If continuing to have positive relations with your neighbour is something you value more than saving money then offer to pay most, (if not all) of their bill.

teddysmum

Could it be that the garage gave the husband a special price, being a friend, then charged the car owner full price ? Also, the estimate was only made on the basis of seeing a photo, so the damage could have been worse than assumed. (Metallic paint would make a job more expensive).


Having known family have a small amount of bodywork done, I'd say it's quite expensive and that the price paid is about what one would expect.

Finst

Quentin wrote: »

(You say children aren't supposed to cycle on a pavement. Are you supposed to park your car on one?)

Cycling on the pavement is illegal (specifically Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). This applies irrespective of the rider's age, although children under 10 would typically be excused on the grounds of being too young for legal responsibility.

Parking a car on the pavement is not illegal, except in London since 1974 or on a road with a Traffic Regulation Order.

And while your other point about parents not being responsible for their children is correct, I would prefer to pay £300 than have my child face legal action. The legal age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10, and while not directly applicable would be used as a guide in a civil case. Given the judgement could be enforced 6 years later, there a highly remote but distinct possibility this child could be chased for the debt aged 17.

In my honest opinion, the child is liable. As a parent, I would want, morally and legally, to clear my child's debt. You of course are entitled to disagree.

Quentin

Finst wrote: »

In my honest opinion, the child is liable. As a parent, I would want, morally and legally, to clear my child's debt. You of course are entitled to disagree.

No doubt your opinion is honest. As posted your morals are irrelevant to the issue,


But you are wrong on your assertion that you are legally wanted to pay because of your child's actions.


You are not legally liable!

Andypandyboy

Quentin wrote: »

No doubt your opinion is honest. As posted your morals are irrelevant to the issue,


But you are wrong on your assertion that you are legally wanted to pay because of your child's actions.


You are not legally liable!

He didn't say that......

esuhl

I'd tell them to chase your son's friend. Isn't he the one who pulled out without warning? :-P