You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
richs - my point was in response to folk saying the school was negligent - its wasn't from what I can see. Yes there could be liabili9y from other sources a you say but again from the info provided there is not in this case from what I can see
But they've offered to pay for the damage to be rectified, that's an acceptance of liability no?
And collude in breaking the law? there is no way I can see that the school can pay this off legally. They are effectively offering a bribe
I've read some rubbish in here, but blimey... what is illegal about a school, assuming that it is within delegated authority and signed off at the appropriate level, offering to pay for damage to something?
But they've offered to pay for the damage to be rectified, that's an acceptance of liability no?
No, it's an offer to pay someone some money.
OP asks what we'd do in a certain situation and then won't / can't give us the entire context of that situation. What I would do would be to ask for more details about the circumstances before deciding.
've read some rubbish in here, but blimey... what is illegal about a school, assuming that it is within delegated authority and signed off at the appropriate level, offering to pay for damage to something?
Because IMO from the i9nformation we have the school is offering to pay out for damage they do not have liability for and schools normally have very strict rules on what money can be spent on. I agree if your assumptions are correct then it would not be illegal but I cannot see how they are. Without liability there is no need to pay up, I cannot see how there is liability on the school from the info we have, paying up without liability would be very much against policy I would have thought so effectively becomes a bribe to shut up which would be illegal?
But we do not have enough info to be certain of either point of view. If I had a kid at the school and found out another parent was being paid money out of school funds for something the school has no need to pay for I would be very unhappy
[quote=frankconway ]the school have implicitly accepted liability
How have they done that?
[quote=Edukator ]I suspect the school has insurance but doesn't want to claim. If you claim on your own insurance they'll go after the school's insurance anyhow.
The school's insurance wouldn't pay, because as discussed it isn't liable - hence the car insurance wouldn't go after the school's insurance (but as I mentioned earlier it might go after the party who is liable).
[quote=Rich_s ]Also, your post about negligence was also wrong, whilst being correct about the requirements for it to be proven. Liability does not have to arise through that tort. There are many other ways, such as nuisance, contract, strict liability, defamation, etc.
That appears to be whataboutery - none of your other examples of liability would apply in this case, do you have an example of one which does override the conditions TJ suggested?
Let the school pay. They've offered, morally if they know who did the damage, they should seek to recoup from them. You shouldn't have to be out of pocket, especially if the culprit is known.
The other option is claim on your insurance and pass on the details of the person who did the damage so they can claim against them, but you can bet your bottom dollar they'll whack a bunch of charges on and send the attack dogs in. So working on the assumption the perpetrator is in some way "vulnerable", letting the school pay is the lesser of 2 evils.
That appears to be whataboutery - none of your other examples of liability would apply in this case, do you have an example of one which does override the conditions TJ suggested?
I was pointing out that TJ made two statements that were incorrect or incomplete.
It's nothing to do with "overriding" what he said, just that liability can arise in other ways than by negligence.
"And collude in breaking the law? there is no way I can see that the school can pay this off legally. They are effectively offering a bribe they are not liable unless something very different happened from what I see in the OP"
TJ - those are fairly dramatic allegations. Many entities agree to settle disputes where they don't have (or believe they have) any liability. There are many reasons to do so, not least that it means both the OP's wife and the School management can get back on with their jobs rather than wasting time worrying about arguments in writing or court rooms, over what is a fairly trivial sum of money in the grand scheme of things. The good will amongst the rest of the staff is probably worth it alone, especially if the circumstances are such that other staff feel the school could have done more to protect their property. To make out that the school is breaking the law by compensating a staff member for damage on their property is preposterous (even although I suspect it is rare that schools ever do so) and to suggest the OP's wife is colluding in a crime is even more ridiculous.
The Bribery Act is quite clear that the inducement has to be to get someone to do something (or not do something) what is the action that the OP's wife is performing in return?
The school probably is insured, but it will have a huge excess (£5k or more) otherwise the premium would be stupid.
Take the money from the school, then complain to your councillor, LEA and possibly the ombudsman that the school is wasting your taxes paying out frivolous claims that it isn't liable for.
[quote=Rich_s ]I was pointing out that TJ made two statements that were incorrect or incomplete.
It's nothing to do with "overriding" what he said, just that liability can arise in other ways than by negligence.
As I said it's irrelevant whataboutery, because TJ's conditions do apply in this case.
[quote=poly ]The school probably is insured, but it will have a huge excess (£5k or more) otherwise the premium would be stupid.
and as pointed out numerous times now, if the school isn't liable (and it's hard to see how it could be - certainly without more detail which completely changes the context) then no insurance policy will be paying out anyway - insurance companies aren't in the business of making goodwill payments.
If your wife is in a teaching union she may be covered for this.
From NUT website
• Malicious damage to motor vehicles in school or college premises
Cover up to a maximum of £500 for malicious damage to a member's private car or motorcycle while on school premises during the time the member is on school or Union business (excess £50). This enables members to protect their no claim discount for small malicious damage claims by not approaching their motor insurers. No claim may be made under this policy if the member intends to claim for the same incident under another policy.
The school also doesn't have a liability for replenishing the biscuit tin in the staff room - does that means that it would be (a) illegal of them and (b) establishes a legal liability to do so, if they pay for a packet of digestives?
Ah so it's a moral dilemma, could have told us that at the start.
If he had said that to start with somebody could have replied:
Just take the money
And that would have saved 3 pages (or 10 if you're reading this later on) of bollocks 😆
insurance companies aren't in the business of making goodwill payments
Depends if it's been on social meeja...
edlong - MemberThe school also doesn't have a liability for replenishing the biscuit tin in the staff room - does that means that it would be (a) illegal of them and (b) establishes a legal liability to do so, if they pay for a packet of digestives?
a) - unless they had lawful authority to spend money in that way and declared it as a taxable benefit then yes. 😉
Poly - the "bribe" is for allowing the school to cover up the incident / not suing the school - thats how it could be seen.
Does the school have legal authority to repair a car damaged in an incident for which it is not liable? Maybe under "goodwill" but I'd be surprised. As someone mentioned tho the status of the school could make a difference
Lots of speculation on this thread( including me) from insufficient facts tho 😉
I can't go into details but holding the student/their parents to account (financially or otherwise) or involving the police is not appropriate.
I'm confused here. Reading between the lines here, some scrote has damaged your property. They should be held to account, both legally and financially. No excuses. Otherwise what message is the school sending out? That it's ok to damage property and get away with it.
My wife worked at a school for severely mentally disabled students, the staff cars were regular damaged by students when they had a moment. The school paid for the damage.
The OP hasn't said that it's a regular school?
Anyway, take the money they are offering.
aracer - you are right insurers don't usually pay up just for fun; sometimes though for a small claim they will settle even if they don't think they absolutely had to because its cheaper than their costs to argue about it. We don't know why the school think they should settle it but "cheers_drive" suggests one plausible explanation and there are two or three others I can think of without trying too hard. Only a court could determine if they definitely were liable.
TJ - that's not a bribe. That is an out of court settlement (probably without admitting liability) it happens with all sorts of organisations all over the country, sometimes because its the right thing to do, and sometimes because its the easy thing to do.
I've no idea what delegated authority the school's management have. Ask the question another way, does the school have authority to reimburse staff's out of pocket expenses incurred as a direct result of their work at the school? Almost certainly. Is this an out of pocket expense. Yes. Was it a direct result of the work at the school - presumably the school are in a better place to know that than you.
[quote=poly ]sometimes though for a small claim they will settle even if they don't think they absolutely had to because its cheaper than their costs to argue about it.
Your experience of insurers is different to mine - IME they tend to deny valid claims in the hope you won't bother with the costs of arguing about it (it doesn't cost them all that much to simply deny a claim)! I note that I have relatively relevant experience here as mrs aracers' company's building insurance wouldn't pay for damage caused to her car when tiles came off the roof in the wind.
"cheers_drive" suggests one plausible explanation
He suggests a reason the school might pay for such things, not a reason why they might be legally liable (though if it's a regular and well known occurrence that changes things - but not necessarily in favour of those trying to claim against the school).
Just take the money if they have offered it, the poverty stricken state school will be far less poverty stricken than one of its teachers.
A poverty stricken teacher who can afford a brand new car 😉
A poverty stricken teacher who can afford a brand new car
Well I'd be poverty stricken if I'd just bought a new car.
A poverty stricken teacher who can afford a brand new car
I heard an ad on the radio for a Dacia something or other this morning, £9k for a brand new car. There are MTB's that cost that much 😉
Thanks for everyone's contributions and speculations.
An agreement has been reached, additional signage and netting will be put in place and she's parking elsewhere for now.
£200 a month on the new car has left her still poverty stricken but not homeless.
[quote=wwaswas ]£200 a month on the new car has left her still poverty stricken but not homeless.
She's sleeping in the car? 😯