Damage charge to a UK holiday home caused by a young child - help!

vikingaero

GLSussex wrote: »

The scratches are visible but are really not that big a deal

It sounds to me that the scratches deeper than you are letting on if they were noticeable. It may not be a big deal to you but it obviously is a big deal to the owner.

The owners, via the letting firm we booked through, have let us know they need to replace 11 of the cladding boards and the total charge to us is £1000!

Someone commented that the round figure of £1,000 was suspicious. Maybe they got a quote and the firm charged exactly £1,000? Why is a rounded figure suspicious? My bathroom quote was £2,500 with no pence. £400 exactly for a shed base. I imagine the work sounds expensive because the cladding overlaps and may need removing from top to bottom to do the job properly.

B. isn't damage caused by a young child counted as 'accidental damage' (whilst my son obviously should not have made the marks, there was no malicious intent behind it).

Wow. Just wow. I would supervise the hell out of my kids if I felt they would damage someone elses property. Even now at the age of 12 and 14, I remind them to open their car doors carefully and if I feel they are likely to ding someones door then I control their access.

Tigsteroonie

I'm with the OP as regards this being accidental damage, sorry.

I'd be asking the home-owner why they aren't claiming on their holiday home insurance, and offer to pay the excess (unless they're already doing this and that's why the round sum of £1000, it's their excess!)

ThumbRemote

vikingaero wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. I would supervise the hell out of my kids if I felt they would damage someone elses property. Even now at the age of 12 and 14, I remind them to open their car doors carefully and if I feel they are likely to ding someones door then I control their access.

Wow indeed. It appears you have supervised your kids every moment of their lives to date. They've never been to school without you present. They've never visited a friends or a relatives without you attending too. They've never slept in their own rooms on holiday, you've always slept in the room with them.

Because if that's not the case, then it's purely your own good fortune that they haven't caused damage to something.

Kids are kids. They can damage stuff. They don't mean to, but it happens. If your kids have never had the had potential to do that, then you've never let them be normal kids, and I feel so, so sorry for them.

macman

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

I'm with the OP as regards this being accidental damage, sorry.

I'd be asking the home-owner why they aren't claiming on their holiday home insurance, and offer to pay the excess (unless they're already doing this and that's why the round sum of £1000, it's their excess!)

Just because the damage was done by a child, doesn't make it 'accidental'. Under the rental T&C's, hirers are responsible for any damage caused, and the person who signs the contract is responsible for damage caused by any of their party-including children.
Using your logic, a hirer could 'accidentally' burn the property to the ground and still expect to get their deposit back.

ThumbRemote

macman wrote: »

Just because the damage was done by a child, doesn't make it 'accidental'. Under the rental T&C's, hirers are responsible for any damage caused, and the person who signs the contract is responsible for damage caused by any of their party-including children.
Using your logic, a hirer could 'accidentally' burn the property to the ground and still expect to get their deposit back.

Given the damage has been caused by a 'young child' I think it would have to be classed as accidental damage. They do not have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing. I think the youngest they could be considered responsible is 10, as per the age of criminal responsibility (I know this isn't a criminal case, just to illustrate that this is the youngest the law recognises so it seems a good guideline to follow).

Also (unless I've missed something) we don't know the hirers T&Cs. However I would consider it very unlikely that these pass on full and unlimited liability for all damage to the hirer. To do so would mean the hirer was essentially responsible for insuring the property during their stay.

GlasweJen

How do you prove who caused the damage? The marks could have been made by anyone and then the adults could just blame kids to get away with not paying.

Vectis

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Given the damage has been caused by a 'young child' I think it would have to be classed as accidental damage. They do not have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing. I think the youngest they could be considered responsible is 10, as per the age of criminal responsibility (I know this isn't a criminal case, just to illustrate that this is the youngest the law recognises so it seems a good guideline to follow).

Also (unless I've missed something) we don't know the hirers T&Cs. However I would consider it very unlikely that these pass on full and unlimited liability for all damage to the hirer. To do so would mean the hirer was essentially responsible for insuring the property during their stay.

I think you need to stop and have a think about this. Are you really saying that a child could do anything to a property that their parent was hiring and the parent could never be held responsible or made to pay for the damage done by the child? That seems to be what you are saying and, honestly, that's just daft.

Whether you agree that the sum the OP is being charged is fair or not is a different matter and, to be honest, none of us know that without seeing the damage ourselves (I notice the OP hasn't uploaded the photos they apparently have despite being told how easily this can be done). Yes, £1000 seems like a lot of money but without seeing the damage we'll never know. Whether it's £100 or £1000 doesn't change the fact that the hirer is responsible for paying for the damage.

I'd be really surprised if you or anyone else would simply shrug their shoulders and say 'Oh well, it's just a child, we can't do anything' if they damaged a property you were renting out. You would expect (demand, in fact) that the person hiring the property paid for the damage. And, yes, the hirer would almost certainly be named in the T&C as being responsible and liable for damage. Take a different scenario, what if a pet dog damaged the property? Would you be honestly telling us that the owner couldn't charge the hirer for the damage because it was caused by an animal and the animal isn't 'legally responsible'. Sorry, but that's just silly.

ThumbRemote

You've slightly misrepresented what I said. I said it was unlikely they could pass on "full and unlimited liability for all damage". There has to be some limit to how much the hirer is liable for. They could probably claim the hirers deposit towards the damage, but I think that is all they could claim - the rest would come off their insurance.


And yes, pet damage would be the same. That's why they have insurance.

sooty&sweep

Hi

It's difficult to judge without seeing pictures. Different people's definition of minor damage isn't the same.
If you took pictures I'm presuming you expected them to say something ?
£1000 does sound steep. Have you asked for a copy of the quote so that you can check what's included ?
Jen

zaax

Have they explain to you why they have not claimed on their insurance?