7 year old child has run into a car on our culdesac, much ado about nothing realy minor dent but car owner is well known for being a complete and utter idiot and parking his 6 cars outside his and the neighbouring housis parents are saying child isnt liable for damage , he says it needs settling, what does STW say, should it go before judge judy or a proper legal team.
Parents paying for the damage is the only reasonable option.
it might be reasonable but if the parents weren't negligent, they have no legal requirement to do so. if they let a 3 year old child run out, negligence is probably there (most parents hold the hands of 3 year olds whilst walking along a road) but at 7? don't think so
Surely if it's your child you are responsible for the damage they caused.
Source
The Mum who paid for my new trousers when her 15 year old son put super glue all over my chair at the front of the class room.
I am a teacher, not some weirdo wandering into classrooms uninvited 😳
She made her son get a job to pay her back. He was still some what lacking in educational motivation when he left a year later.
Just to be clear I can't imagine your 7 year old caused the damage on purpose, nor am I suggesting you send them out to get a job.
What's the dents away type cost? Legalities aside I'd feel bad leaving someone with a bill for the actions/accidents of my kids. Covering the excess / third party cover under household insurance would be my starting point.
The fact the "victim" may be seen as a bit of a weapon isn't really relevant assuming the car isn't on the pavement and the damage isn't on the bit that was on the pavement.
Was the car parked at time was it parked on road not half on pavement as seems to be the norm in residential areas now. Would home insurance cover this
edit wot he said ^
Was the cwr legally parked? Years ago i put a motorcycle into a car. The car was illegally parked thus i had no liability .
If thr car was on the pavement then id tell them to do one
nope.Surely if it’s your child you are responsible for the damage they caused.
Unless you have been negligent in some way. I cannot see a no-win-no-fee solicitor wanting to go the distance on this in court though for a "minor dent" though 😂
So 100% depends on whether OP wishes to remain on good terms with said bell-end neighbour, or if not fussed then just tell them that's what insurance is for 🤣
although this would be a very interesting nuance!!Was the car parked at time was it parked on road not half on pavement
Is this vehicle in question taxed , motd and insured? And on its own policy not under the umbrella of a trade policy , of late they have been tightened up to stop multiple cars being kept on the road.
If not , then I wouldn't pay as it shouldn't be there.
Our eldest decided to draw a nice picture with a stone. On the neighbours new Jaguar.
We paid.
I think the correct response is...no.
Matt - is your eldest still on the naughty step?
Our eldest decided to draw a nice picture with a stone. On the neighbours new Jaguar.
Damian Hurst? No problem
Mini Moab? No pudding
Where's the justice?
As far as I am aware I dont have a 7 year old , car was parked on land the kids play on , well whenever he hasnt got his 3 other cars parked there being serviced or in some state of being stripped then reassembled
I am indifferent really, just wondered where public opinion would land.
How much damage can a child do to a car? If you leave a car lying around in a street it’s bound to get some wear and tear? If it’s still perfectly functional then he should stop fussing and forget about it.
Difficult one, but I would not pay if:
Car was badly parked e.g. on pavement, riggt up to junctions, driveways etc.
Car could be on driveway to prevent damage but wasn't. He clearly doesn't care that much about car if he cannot be bothered to use drive.
As I have no legal obligation to, and he seems like a d**k then I would be one as well!! 🙂
I love my cars. I love my kids more. If my kids damaged my cars or any vehicle on the public highway it would be an accident. Vehicles are insured for such events. Kids are not. It’s not America. Own a car, don’t want it exposed to the risk of damage through an accident then put it in a garage in an inflated dehumidified tent, don’t park it on the road, where kids play. End of.
When my granddad was a child he had job working for the neighbouring chip shop, not at night when they were serving but in the morning, cleaning and resetting fire in the coal-fuelled range / frier before he went to school.
One morning - by one means or another - he managed to burn the whole place down. Leaving the owner without a business or a home. The whole thing ended up in court and my great grandmother, as the parent, was deemed liable the guy's losses. Nobody involved had any kind of insurance or the means the pay to cover the loss so it was determined by the court that as compensation she had to cook the chipshop owner his supper, every night, for the rest of his life.
she had to cook the chipshop owner his supper, every night, for the rest of his life
Sounds a bit fishy to me. I bet the lad got battered and put firmly in his plaice. The poor wee scampi
If the car owner is a nice reasonable person... pay up.
If he's a total waaaaaaka and parked in a stupid place where it was predictable it wouldhappen, I'd tell him to ****rightorf and that he needs to try suing the 7 year old. He won't get far with that.
Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else's property then I'm sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!
Some questionable morals in here tonight....
Lack of detail of how the car was damaged.
If a car is parked, legally or not, if someone damages it, they pay for it. There's never an excuse or reason to damage a stationary object.
Obviously, kids can be idiots, but that's when parents step up and pay.
Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else’s property then I’m sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!
Some questionable morals in here tonight….
Very much this
A child under this persons care accidentally damages the property of another.
Unless there were significant extenuating circumstances it's their responsibility. The keyboard lawyers can try and find a way to say it's not that person's 'legal' responsibility and they want, but back in the real world of common sense and moral responsibility, it just is.
This is what 3rd party liability on your home insurance is for.
The owner of the car sounds a bit of a cock. That makes it an even harder pill to swallow, but doesn't change the deal.
If a car is parked, legally or not, if someone damages it, they pay for it.
Nope - if its illegally parked you may not have to. I crashed my motorcycle and it slid into a parked car. because the car was parked illegally ( too close to a junction) I did not have to pay. whether this would apply in this sort of case I do not know but the positioning of the vehicle and its legality is pertinent. Say the kid is running along the pavement and trips and falls into a car that is parked blocking the pavement?
Our eldest decided to draw a nice picture with a stone. On the neighbours new Jaguar.
We paid.
Paying your own kid for their artwork sets unreasonable expectations IMHO.
Matt – is your eldest still on the naughty step?
Damn right.
He was three at the time.
He's 22 now.
To add, as a child I put a sizable dent in the roof of two cars. The first was as a 3 year old throwing stones under the supervision of my dad - one went wildly out of control and landed on a car 180 degrees from the direction I was aiming. Dad paid up. The second was about 12 years later playing cricket. An actual match on an actual pitch and this bloke parks right on the boundary. We didn't pay up for that one.........though I 'might' have been aiming for it.....way too tempting.
The kid's caused damage to someone's property, the parents should be paying to make good. It's no different from hoofing a football through their window. Comments like how the owner is "a complete and utter idiot and parking his 6 cars outside his and the neighbouring housis" is emotive curtain-twitching nonsense and not relevant to anything, he's got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they're taxed and insured whether he's got 1, 6 or 200 of the things. Where else is he supposed to park six cars, the kitchen?
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
This is what 3rd party liability on your home insurance is for.
Clue is in the name there. It pays out when you're liable. In this case you are not., so it would not pay out
This is what first party insurance is for, if you have things that kids might damage which you care about
Clue is in the name there. It pays out when you’re liable. In this case you are not
But the third party is. Clue is in the name there.
I wonder if some people's opinions and ideals about transport methods are clouding their judgement here. "I don't like cars so I'll take side with anyone who's causing bother to cars and car owners".
But the third party is. Clue is in the name there.
sometimes people can be too cocky. Third party is actually the person (or other entity) making the claim against the insured.
OP is making little sense tbh, so hard to reach a conclusion. Like,
what does this mean? What land? Who owns it?car was parked on land the kids play on
Maybe a diagram would help 🤣
sometimes people can be too cocky. Third party is actually the person (or other entity) making the claim against the insured.
"Third party" is a relative term, no? The car owner and the child owner are third parties to each other.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
that’s the real question raised by this thread, with a supplementary - how hard do they have to hit it to leave lasting damage?
he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things. Where else is he supposed to park six cars, the kitchen?
I'm deliberately quoting selectively here. Assuming we're talking busy urban/suburban areas, why should we allow public roads to get clogged up by someone effectively using public space as "free storage" for their personal possessions?
If someone doesn't have enough private garage or drive space, they shouldnt be allowed to own a second vehicle unless they pay for a parking permit.
Nobody is under any obligation as a pedestrian or a cyclist to carry any form of insurance. Whether they be a child, uncoordinated teenager or adult.
Say one of you lot rode into the front of my Alfa when it parked outside of Lidl. Bonnet’s £15000 ( yes fifteen thousand), front bumper £3000, headlight. £800. Front spoiler £4k. £6k with all the motors and fitting. Paint? Well time to sell the house ‘cos painting and matching Automotive carbon properly so it doesn’t fall off in 6 months time is comedy expensive. You seriously expect me to take that from you or your kid’s pocket money? Yeah right, it’s not 1952. Get yourself a paper round and a skelp ‘round the lugs. That’s why I’m insured. It’s not my liability but my insurance will pick up the tab. I’d be sad and annoyed, but that’s life.
I wonder if some people’s opinions and ideals about transport methods are clouding their judgement here. “I don’t like cars so I’ll take side with anyone who’s causing bother to cars and car owners”.
Cars are always going to be a special case.
We have no other possession that we expect to leave in public spaces and that space effectively becomes part of our property.
Kids have a right to explore and play. It's part of how we grow into functioning adults. Sometimes that's going to lead to shit getting damaged.
Cars ownership (or rather, the lobbying of the car industry) has been the single biggest damaging thing to our communities in the last 100 years.
So yeah, kids being kids should be prioritised over supporting the thinking that led to our car dominated society. There's a certain expectation that kids should learn to stay away from private property. Therefore if a kid breaks a window then that kid has broken the social agreement by taking too many risks near someone else's property.
Cars are ****ing everywhere. It's unreasonable to leave kids with no area that they can play in which is what car owners do.
If you don't want your car damaged, don't leave it in the kids' spaces.
Clue is in the name there. It pays out when you’re liable. In this case you are not., so it would not pay out
This is what first party insurance is for, if you have things that kids might damage which you care about
I suggest you go do some reading.
Yeah it’s not first party insurance. It’s the uninsured liability bit. Unless you seriously do think it’s 1952 and have your Morris A35 on a 3rd party only policy. Good luck buying a door.
Parents should consider covering the damage, but where the car was parked matters too. If it was in a play area, it's a tricky situation.
I’d love to know where this child’s liability ends. Say it’s not my Alfa, but my brother’s superb and it needs a new door. They’re £800 biw (unpainted). Paint will be in the order of £600. There’s a lot of plastic external moulding, most of which is one time fit probably another £400. Labour @£100/hr, £400? Probably wants a courtesy car for the day which won’t be free £100. £2500+vat? Oh he broke the mirror as well. Another £500.
simply no. Owner’s insurance. Awkward conversion. Tough titties.
Eye opener this thread, if my kid damages someone else’s property then I’m sorting it, not checking his insurance and mot ffs!
Some questionable morals in here tonight…
This.
And I have done when my daughter was small. The owner wasn't even aware that my child had damaged their car, but I made them aware and paid for the repair
I’d love to know where this child’s liability ends.
It's a pretty easy one to get your head around. Simply think of them as an extension of you, and then work out if your moral compass, sense of doing the right and plain old fashioned law means you think you are responsible if it were you who did the damage.
Again, extenuating circumstances might mean you don't feel you are. So in my example above - if as an adult I'd thrown a stone and messed up and hit a car, yes I'd be paying. If I was playing a game of cricket at a recognised cricket ground and some lemon parked his car in range of the square, then no I don't think I'd have a responsibility to make reparations. We don't really know enough from the OP about how daft the owner of this car was with their parking..a diagram might help 🙂
I crashed my motorcycle and it slid into a parked car. because the car was parked illegally ( too close to a junction) I did not have to pay
As a former claims manager, I'd like to see the working out there.
Pedestrians obviously don't have to have insurance. Which is not the same thing as "can't be liable".
Meanwhile over on Pistonheads
"Where do I stand with the curtain twitcher self entitlement neighbour with the feral child who is trying to avoid his civil responsibility after my legally parked MOT'd and 'taxed' classic Talbot Rancho was damaged by said child"
" Can I small claims court for the damage or future increased costs of insurance?"
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
As a former claims manager, I’d like to see the working out there.
I was surprised but thats what happened. Long time ago now but I know it wasn't even "knock for knock" but that I was not deemed liable as the car was only damaged because it was parked on a roundabout ( big wide roundabout with shops on it in a suburban estate) Maybe foreseeable risk? ie the car owner by parking where they did had put their car in harms way? dunno. Did a lot of damage to the car as well.
ie the car owner by parking where they did had put their car in harms way?
I had my car written off by a rally car once. Parked off the road in a seemingly safe space. Safety cars and road closure cars came through and didn't bat an eye.
One of the last cars through went off the road and took out my car and the car parked next to it.
I figured there would be some sort of 3rd party insurance, either for the rally car driver or for the event to cover damage caused by competitors but apparently not. I had to use my insurance and the other guy, who only had 3rd party, had to suck it up.
I think you have to take some responsibility for where you decide to park your car. Even if those places are entirely legal and all your documents are up to date.
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
In your case I'd hope I was dealing with someone reasonable, I'd certainly be expecting to cover his excess and increase in premium.
he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things
Not if he's running some sort of low level trading he's not.
The kid’s caused damage to someone’s property, the parents should be paying to make good. It’s no different from hoofing a football through their window.
its all about facts and circumstances. If the owner of a car knows that an area is commonly used by children for playing and he still parks there, to some extend I expect a court would say he parked at his own risk.
he’s got every right to park vehicles on a public road if they’re taxed and insured whether he’s got 1, 6 or 200 of the things. Where else is he supposed to park six cars, the kitchen?
im not sure he actually has any right to park a vehicle on the highway. Its accepted custom and practice and there are rules about it but I think its overstating it to say they’re is a “right” to park vehicles. That doesn’t mean it absolves someone of liability but it’s not quite as clear cut as that.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
Exactly the facts and circumstance that make it not 100% automatic that liability rests with kid (and thus parent). If you really want to mess with your head imagine 7yr old Alan goes to play with 7yr old friend Bob. Alan’s mother understand that Bob’s father is supervising them. Bob’s father is actually in the back garden fixing his bike. Alan and Bob are playing in the front garden. They migrate to the pavement where a neighbours car gets damaged after Alan comes into contact with it? Who is liable? Potentially Bob’s dad! But what if Alan tripped and fell into the car 100% accidentally, hardly foreseeable that it would result in damage (but it could). What if another kid Charlie had joined them and Bob’s dad was not even aware Charlie was there - what if Charlie pushed Alan into the car? What if Alan, bob and Charlie had been squabbling outside for 20 minutes and there had been lots of pushing and shoving in all directions and it just happened that the damage came that time? What if the car meant the pavement was narrower and so the risk of contact/damage was greater Etc etc.
for what it’s worth if you park your car on the public highway you always run the risk of either accidental or malicious damage. You may get an honest citizen offering to make that good but even if they are insured (eg via house insurance) I’m not sure many car insurers would bother to pursue that if there was any resistance. Of course insurers often want an easy way out rather than truely determining who is at fault - but they are pragmatically aware of the costs of proving a point.
Having kids sounds expensive and fraught with decisions affected my morals.
Think I'll get a dog.
If there was some damage caused by the child, so very vague, then the parents pay out either with insurance or cash. It doesn’t matter if it is not insured or no MOT and not being parked legally has no input either. If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
Ooh the plot has gone awry .. child was learning to ride her bike on their own drive has lost control and gone off the end , next door neighbour has beef with them and likes to park cars as close as possible etc to be obstructive , even places obstructions behind other peoples cars , like unseen wheely bins etc.
Anyway its a tiny dent the kind paintless dent removal would get out .
Such is the boredom of life on the sac i thought it might make interesting debate.
As much as we're being socially engineered to hate cars and drivers it's simple. If the kid was moving and the car wasn't then it's the parents responsibility. Remember the first rule.
If you'd left your flyweight uberbike outside while you nipped back for that extra protein bar before your big ride and a neighbour's kid knocked it over, what would you want the outcome to be?
You can try for caveats like was the car parked dangerously or illegally but if it's always parked like that, it begs the question why didn't you radie the issue sooner.
Any justification for why the child didn't see it, or was unable to stop?
Drac
Full Member
If there was some damage caused by the child, so very vague, then the parents pay out either with insurance or cash. It doesn’t matter if it is not insured or no MOT and not being parked legally has no input either. If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
Morally, yes. Legally, only if negligence can be proved.
If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
OK, so why did my insurance have to pay when a rally car hit my car? Perhaps because the owner has to accept some responsibility for where their car is parked.
If it was their only car and it was parked on the road outside their house then you would might have a case.
One of six cars parked where kids are known to play? I would say the owner must have known there was a risk of damage and accepted that risk.
Don't think it's quite as clear cut as the car lobby would like us to believe. Your home might be your castle but any random bit of ground you choose to leave your six cars is not.
Parent is not automatically liable, but may be if they were negligent in some way.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
Based on the kids in my street, very easily. Most of them have no clue that they're not supposed to be running across neighbours driveways and gardens. Little idiots.
They could be seen as negligent in that they should have shut the gate so the child could not "gone off the end" and potentially into any traffic, cars, people etc,.
Could have just as easily ridden into an old person walking down the road and knocked them over but then we will soon have laws for that sort of dangerous cycling which can't come soon enough as these 7 year olds need to be in prison.
Such is the boredom of life on the sac
🤣
This thread is giving me a good insight into why birth rates are falling.
Good luck getting your car to wipe your arse when you're in the nursing home.
not being parked legally has no input either.
Not according to my insurance co. as above I was NOT liable for hitting an illegally parked car
Good luck getting your car to wipe your arse when you’re in the nursing home.
Still hoping the government will allow me to kill myself by then but realise that is pretty hopeful in this backward country.
I suggest you go do some reading
@covert what about? 3rd party liability cover only pays out when you're legally liable. In this case the kid (and their parents) are not. They do not pay out when you feel bad about a situation and want to make it right.
1st party insurance can cover you for unexpected losses. In this case the car owner has had an unexpected loss.
The only insurance that provides any cover in this scenario is the car owners third party cover.
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
Well, not having insurance doesn't stop you being liable, it just means you have to find the money yourself. We used to apply for attachment of earnings orders, sometimes got a charge put on their property.
Interesting so many focusing on the strict legal liability/negligence view. A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.
Think I’ll get a dog.
Then, when it runs into a car and damages it, you will be liable as you are responsible for the dog 😉
A bit if a moral vacuum on show by some folk.
Yes, mostly by people who feel that kids' experiences growing up should be built around ensuring they understand that cars have the indisputable right to all public spaces.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
fork on backwards? 🤣
In your case I’d hope I was dealing with someone reasonable, I’d certainly be expecting to cover his excess and increase in premium.
To take the scenario to extremes, what if just after parking your (undamaged) car in a car park, it caught fire unexpectedly and burned the car next to it? Or if it burned down an entire multistory with a few million quids worth of cars and structural damage, as happened last year? The moral thing to do hasn't changed - your car caused damage to other property. The legal obligation hasn't changed - you are not liable and your insurance won't pay out the 3rd parties. Do you sell your house to pay the excess and increase in costs on 100 cars?
"As much as we’re being socially engineered to hate cars and drivers"
Lol! What nonsense is this? I wish it were true btw but really, you think that?
Being socially engineered to hate perhaps....
especially if it’s parked near/on a kids play area.
Unless the road is a kids play area then doesn't sound like it was.
@covert what about? 3rd party liability cover only pays out when you’re legally liable. In this case the kid (and their parents) are not. They do not pay out when you feel bad about a situation and want to make it right.
1st party insurance can cover you for unexpected losses. In this case the car owner has had an unexpected loss.
The only insurance that provides any cover in this scenario is the car owners third party cover.
Whilst I totally agree that 3rd party liability would only pay out if a household member (adult or child) are legally liable, I'm not convinced I, or you, know what the exact situation is here. In principle though it is perfectly possible for the parent of a child to be legally liable for the damage their child has done to the property of a third party.
So you honestly saying that in my hypothetical situation where you or your child as an uninsured cyclist, having ridden into the wrong end of my Alfa are going to dip into your own pocket and pick out the £30 to £40 grand it commonly costs to put them right? That’s very good of you. I don’t think it’ll actually pan out like that.
It might not be the case of it being very good of me. We have a resident claims manager in the house who can fill in the blanks but even if you did choose to claim on your own insurance, your insurance company might not be so benevolent. IF I was traceable AND if my legal liability is easily provable (i.e. you saying you saw me and it being your word against mine might not be enough) AND I looked worth pursuing from a cold hard cash capacity to pay for some or all of the cost either through the pound in my pocket or my 3rd party liability I'd either got through my house insurance or my British Cycling membership, I would not be surprised if your insurance company spread the love a little and came for me or my insurers. If I was a homeless alcoholic with 30p in my pocket, not so much as it simply would not be worth their while.
Unless the road is a kids play area then doesn’t sound like it was.
This is the really sad thing.
In many cases it's impossible for kids to find an area to play that doesn't have cars nearby. And people are so conditioned to think that their car and any land it happens to sit on is an extension of their property that they assume if anything happens to their car it is the other person who is at fault.
Car people need to accept that attitudes are changing. Public spaces are public spaces. Kids are going to play whether it is a designated play area or not.
Don't get me wrong. I ****ing hate kids but play is in their nature and adhering to arbitrary boundaries of what is and isn't a play area is not.'
I accepted that a rally car writing off my car was my responsibility. Car owners who get the occasional ding from a kid cannonballing around on their bike need to do the same.
How does a 7-year old kid just run into a parked car?
fork on backwards?
🤣
I going with euro brake set up
If there was some damage caused by the child, so very vague, then the parents pay out either with insurance or cash. It doesn’t matter if it is not insured or no MOT and not being parked legally has no input either. If you damage someone’s car then you are liable to pay out.
So parking a car 3/4 over a pavement so my son* could be barley squeeze past on his bike is ok? Told the nob head whose car it was that I wasn't paying for the scratch and to call the police. Never heard anything more
* he was 5 or 6 yrs old
