Son damaged neighbours car

tempus_fugit

Finst wrote: »

Particularly if the "path" you refer to was a pavement (you are not supposed to cycle on the pavement).

Surely the car should not be partly parked on the pavement either?

sheramber

I would say that by parking on the pavement they were half responsible and pay half the bill.

Norman_Castle

There was clearly confusion between the three parties about what was agreed. Can the op claim through their household insurance retrospectively?.

Norman_Castle

sheramber wrote: »

I would say that by parking on the pavement they were half responsible and pay half the bill.

Would you say that as a parent of a car damaging child or as a car owner parked partially on the pavement?

rs65

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Can the op claim through their household insurance retrospectively?.

It was only 10 days ago so not exactly retrospective. The point, as mentioned before, is that there is no legal liability. The policy covers legal liability.

EdGasket

Household insurance public liability covers liability to do with the owning of a house; it won't cover children's behaviour away from the home!

rs65

EdGasket wrote: »

Household insurance public liability covers liability to do with the owning of a house;

Buildings insurance usually includes owners/occupiers liability but contents usually includes personal liability.

Aretnap

EdGasket wrote: »

Household insurance public liability covers liability to do with the owning of a house; it won't cover children's behaviour away from the home!

Buildings insurance provides public liability cover for liabilities relating to your occupation of the house. Contents insurance, however, provides more general public liability cover which extends to incidents away from the home, and would normally cover liabilities arising out of an incident like this (assuming there is a legal liability of course; it's not obvious that there is).

awindup

I wrote a massive speech and decided it was too confusing so here's the short version lol. Do you care about your neighbour? If yes pay up if no let them sue you ( or your son depending on the law) . There is no proof as to how much damage was there previously so the onus is on them to recoup the amount they have paid the garage to do the repair. Finally as it is highly unlikely they have followed the Rules of Engagement for a claim on house insurance I doubt any policy will pay out and this will therefore become a plain and simple civil matter. If your son is legally of an age to be held liable for the cost again it is not a criminal offence so I would seeked legal advice but whatever happens your son would not have a criminal record only a debt. It is also funny that unless your son is earning decent money doing his paper round he is not likely to be able to repay the debt quickly however if the law decides you are liable for his actions then you would have to pay in the time frame befitting your means. Finally the fact that they paid more than you have been quoted is totally irrelevant that is the cost of fixing the vehicle is all the damage was caused by your son. Personally I would pay whatever they're asking and send them a bunch of flowers apologising but on balance this may not be the best course of action as either neighbour may move away and the friendship dissolved lol I do hope that your son is now ok

magpiecottage

You should heed the comments of dacouch and rs65 on this.

The accident happened but the mere fact that the OP's son hit the vehicle does necessarily mean that the son is liable, let alone the OP.

If the car owner is seeking to make a claim, pass it, unanswered, to your contents insurer (if you have contents insurance) and ask them to address it.

The answer will almost certainly be "tough" - prossibly pointing out that rule 244 of the Highway Code means that they are the authors of their own misfortune. At least, though, it will come from the insurer not you and will at least show that you have taken the matter seriously.