car windscreen chip, who is liable

jimjames

odemwingie5 wrote: »

i have now been approached by another person saying that his car has been damaged and there is too many tiny dinks to repair and the new windscreen is going to cost £400 to replace

So are there 2 different people with damaged cars? One with a chipped windscreen and the other with dented paintwork?


The windscreen repair might be £25 (that's the excess on my policy)

Herzlos

facade wrote: »

You do have to live next door to someone who feels you "owe" him £400 for years (unless you have already sold up)

That's the rub. How will this affect relations with the neighbours and is that an issue? Maybe they are trying it on, who knows.

BeenThroughItAll

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Not from the Meadow Well are they?

No, an ex-mining town south of Sunderland.

JP08

This may be an obvious thing to try, but nobody has mentioned it.


Have you asked your child what he was doing ? Even if they tell a fib you should (at 4) be able to spot it - I know my parents could.


Odds on that he wasn't throwing stones at cars, just throwing them in the air to see how far up he can get them and the noise they make when they land (yep, could have been me again at that age).


Wouldn't take much for a slightly larger stone to clear the car roof and land on the screen - even a four year old underarm throw could easily take a 2cm stone to twenty feet or so ...

Silver-Surfer_2

JP08 wrote: »

This may be an obvious thing to try, but nobody has mentioned it.


Have you asked your child what he was doing ? Even if they tell a fib you should (at 4) be able to spot it - I know my parents could.


Odds on that he wasn't throwing stones at cars, just throwing them in the air to see how far up he can get them and the noise they make when they land (yep, could have been me again at that age).


Wouldn't take much for a slightly larger stone to clear the car roof and land on the screen - even a four year old underarm throw could easily take a 2cm stone to twenty feet or so ...

I did ask him, he decided not to answer that one.

photome

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

As I said, what relevance are my kids here?

because you said your kids wouldnt have done it, other than that no relevance.

you still have no way of knowing they wouldnt though

you got me to bite though

Car_54

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

I did ask him, he decided not to answer that one.

Had you cautioned him?

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."

Silver-Surfer_2

photome wrote: »

because you said your kids wouldnt have done it, other than that no relevance.

you still have no way of knowing they wouldnt though

you got me to bite though

Oh I do, but thanks for your concern.

motorguy

odemwingie5 wrote: »

Are you a politician? skirted the same question again,
If you had doubt, for whatever reason you have to have a doubt would you then pay up?
Because guess what?
I Have doubt!!
whether or not you agree with my doubt does not extinguish my doubt

You sound like a wonderful neighbour.

You're trying to convince yourself you have reason for believing your son didnt do it so you dont have to pay.

He was throwing stones near cars, he was seen doing it, you didnt have control of him at the time and didnt know what he was doing, so you either can deny it was your son and live with the consequences of falling out with your neighbours and the risk of any "action" they might take.

I am sure you think your little snowflake is so precious and wouldnt do such a thing but under the circumstances - and bearing in mind you've no idea what he was actually doing at the time - personally, i'd suck it up and pay.

Try keeping control of your children in future and then you wont end up in the same position again