D
Deleted member 6183
Guest
I'm surprised that the usual suspects haven't piped up with 'sue the parents at county court' line yet.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Parents were apologetic and offered to pay for the damage regardless of cost as the door was 2 week old, i got the quote, gave them it and then decided they would ask their family solicitor, which obviously told them legally they dont have to pay for anything thats what car insurance is for.
That's interesting - I've always wondered what the legal standpoint is for this situation.
I am surprised though that if you had evidence of someone else causing damage to your property that they are not responsible for paying repairs.
I know it’s probably a very long time ago, but did you never have an accident when you were a child? Maybe kicked a ball a bit too hard and it hit a neighbours window? Or are you one of those saints that did nothing wrong when you were a child?
With kids there is the issue of the of responsibility. Youngsters aren't considered to be responsible.
If the kids not legally responsible then what about the parents? Well that's blurry as well. If the kid did something while munder supervision of the parent then there's a stronger case. But kids going about their normal activities/play and not under direct supervision - then it's difficult legally to show that the parents are responsible.
Most parents I know would be mortified if their kids damaged somebody's property and would try and make reasonable restitution - but this has its practical limits - and for higher costs to repair then they'd be more likely thinking covering an inusrance excess rather than the total costs of repair.
If they were "good neighbours", they would have offered to pay.
I’ve got a funny feeling that some posters haven’t read the link posted by @grober...
Good suggestion, if Judge Rinder rules in your favour ITV pays so everyone wins!Strangely, I happened to catch a trailer for "Judge Rinder" earlier whilst channel surfing and he stated as part of his invitation to the show "Has someone damaged your property and you want to be reimbursed for the damage".
It's probably an open and shut case with adults but as you state - difficult with a child. I wonder how it would play out in a court if someone took it that far.
I admit I hadn’t, but my point about it being more than just financial is still relevant.I’ve got a funny feeling that some posters haven’t read the link posted by @grober...
I fully understand that, and if I was the child’s father I’d pay to fix the damage, it’s more of a riposte to some of the people talking about how the child’s parents are liable from a legal point of view - they’re not.I admit I hadn’t, but my point about it being more than just financial is still relevant.
Yes, if you have it on camera, they should pay for it. Parents should be liable for their children. If they get sh!tty about it, take them to small claims court. Don't get emotional and keep the conversation factual. It's not personal and they should understand that.
I’ve got a funny feeling that some posters haven’t read the link posted by @grober...
Yes...and no. It depends on the case and how good the other guys lawyer is. If they can prove the CCTV/audio was acquired illegally it can not be included in the case bundle as evidence. I did not say all CCTV footage is inadmissible as evidence.If this is the case why do the Police ask for any such video evidence and use it to prosecute defendants??? And going even further, what about Dashcam footage, is that not used as evidence in court?
And your quote stating that CCTV Evidence is inadmissible is incorrect, it is used all the time!
At the end of they day you've got kids, bikes, scooters, footballs and cars on drives. Stuff happens.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.