Money Moral Dilemma: Should neighbour pay as her son smashed the window

forkinell wrote: »

sue the b****. It's this type of behaviour from parents that has this country absolutely ruined. People who won't accept responsibility for the actions of their children should have them taken into care and then be sterilised to prevent them contaminating the country with more of their little angels

IMHO it's actually people like YOU that (in your words) 'has this country absolutely ruined'; intolerant, ignorant and too quick to jump on a bandwagon.

Regarding the original issue and the idea of it falling under the criminal damage act, it doesn't seem to have been fully established whether the child in question was being reckless - dependant on the nature of the game, merely playing in the street IMHO is not being reckless; at the very least it's open to interpretation and debate.

That obviously doesn't negate the fact that damage was caused, but I do think that the financial recompense is the lesser issue here. I agree with posters that have suggested the young man in question completes odd jobs by way of 'compensation'. IMHO the key thing here is the lesson for the young man in question.

Utlimately I think that the OP needs to decide whether they want financial recompense or whether they want the parents and their son to take responsibility; but be aware that the two are entirely different.

Cheers

Tryster

hushabye wrote: »

I have been on the flip side of this dilemma.
My own son accidently ran into my neighbour's wing mirror whilst outside the house, it was not smashed but was hanging down from it's position. He immediately came in and told us what had happened and my husband went nextdoor to tell them and see if he could fix it back on. He couldn't and so offered to pay for the damage, despite the fact that money was very tight at the time.
We were very friendly neighbours at the time and I had, for several years had my neighbours' children to play round frequently, taken them out with us in the holidays and watched them whilst they 'popped out'. None of which was ever reciprocated.
She came to the door to ask for £130 for a new wing mirror (for an old Vauxhall Astra), and said the whole thing had to be replaced. We felt that we had been well and truly 'done over' and that none of the past favours had meant a thing to them.
We rarely speak these days, and having been 'done over' by someone for what we considered to be the right and honest way to deal with the issue, I would hesitate to own up over a similar thing in the future.

I tend to agree with the others on this. I don't think you've been done over; you could probably Google the cost of buying and installing a new wing mirror if your neighbor won't show you the invoice.

Your son did £130 of damage; you offered to pay and were taken up on the offer. You did the right thing, yet you seem to have turned a positive into a negative: instead of being just £130 down, it has also cost you your relationship with the neighbors.

Tryster wrote: »

IMHO it's actually people like YOU that (in your words) 'has this country absolutely ruined'; intolerant, ignorant and too quick to jump on a bandwagon.

Regarding the original issue and the idea of it falling under the criminal damage act, it doesn't seem to have been fully established whether the child in question was being reckless - dependant on the nature of the game, merely playing in the street IMHO is not being reckless; at the very least it's open to interpretation and debate.

That obviously doesn't negate the fact that damage was caused, but I do think that the financial recompense is the lesser issue here. I agree with posters that have suggested the young man in question completes odd jobs by way of 'compensation'. IMHO the key thing here is the lesson for the young man in question.

Utlimately I think that the OP needs to decide whether they want financial recompense or whether they want the parents and their son to take responsibility; but be aware that the two are entirely different.

Cheers

Tryster

Sorry Tryster, I don't see why having a cynical attitude about the increasingly immoral majority in this country equates to contributing to ruining it. If anything it's a (perfectly understandable) defence mechanism to the deny all responsibility brigade.

The OP is LEGALLY entitled to full financial recompense for their loss. Whether or not they see it worthwhile in cost/aggro/lost relationship (if indeed there were any to start with) in pursuing this is their decision.

The OP is MORALLY entitled to an apology from the child's mother for her son's actions and from her son also. Yes, it may have been an accident (note: may have been) but ultimately it will show them both that actions have consequences and that they are noble enough to understand this. It should also hopefully give a measure of where the OP stands with them both going forwards.

Why 'may have been an accident'? It says 'accidentally' in the OP.

What should you do .. needs to consider several of the following so pick and mix:

Firstly the fact that most right thinking parents would at least accept responsibility and try to pay for the damage speaks volumes for the hassle you face if you are determined to continue with the family itself yourself.

Can you afford the money, is worth the hassle of trying any further to get it out of the child/parent, the potential ill will that even trying to get it might follow. Is it a matter of principle that you want them to accept responsibility?

Some folks have talked about criminal damage but a child under 10 is deemed below the age of criminal responsibility. Above that age, unless its the child from hell Police intervention will likely be very low key. Many Police Forces do have a discretionary intevention policy where they act as mediators and arrange for the 'culpit' to do some sort of pay back, eg pocket money deductions, letter of apology, working it off such as gardening.

I speculate what sort of play and accident enabled a 'young child' to damage your window, so maybe, just maybe it's worth you speaking with the Police - sorry any serving officers reading - but nowadays it really is a waste of time in most circumstances.

Probably the most practicable thing would be to find out if your future insurance premiums are likely to rise, insurers have different views on 'claim' and 'blame', loss of discount, protected bonus, and the right to determine how they will conduct any claim on your behalf. You could try 'insisting' that if your bonus will suffer the insurers persue the money from the parents.

Finally, where do you normally park your car ?.. lots of people are actually risking their insurance claims by saying they leave it secure in a garage or private drive way when the truth is they leave it at risk on the street. Also saying the main driver is over 25 when the teenage family member is in reality the main user. This is just a polite way of describing how possible 'inacuracies' and lack of attention each time you renew could be fraud so check your policy carefully .. claims sometimes come back and bite the maker .. I hope not in your case. Good luck.

:jtotally debt free, and still - just - despite the Govts attempts to make savers and sensible folks clear the Countries debts with below inflation rate interest rates some money in the bank for that rainy day when the roof needs repairing.