To expect Mum to pay up after 4YO child scratched every panel on our car

[LupoLoopy]

Context: My wife works at a nursery school as an assistant.. Her car was parked in the staff car park, which the kids egress though when they leave, under parental supervision.

During lunch time pick-up, one of the departing 4 year old's took a rock and scratched every panel and light fixture on her car, all whilst his Mum was standing within 6M of the car, chatting to a friend.

The incident was captured on CCTV.

The cost of a proper repair is so close to the value of the car, I fear it being written off, which is something we could afford but would hurt us a lot financially.

Although the damage is only cosmetic, the car was pristine before the incident (I'm a fussy sod who takes good care of his stuff) and I don't see why we should tolerate driving a 'shed' around 'for the children'.

We're trying to seek restitution from the School's insurance (if it will cover it) but to cover our butts, we've reported the incident to the police (so and official record exists) and reported it to our insurer.

If we have to use our car insurance AND we're fortunate enough to not have the car written off, it's going to tank my partners insurance premiums.

Frankly, I want to encourage the police to be fully involved and start proceedings immediately for civil action via the small claims court. I just dont think I can have confidence that Mum is going to be wired in the same way I am - i.e. it's her liability and don't see why we should be financially crippled by her parental inattention.

AIBU?

Christ, there's some utter cobblers posted on this thread.

I think you sound perfectly reasonable.

My car (parked on my own driveway) was damaged by a neighbour's 4 year old with a rock and their house contents insurance paid out - the child was outside playing with no supervision and they'd climbed up onto the car and did the boot lid the roof and every panel on the driver's side.

We didn't have to pay any excess and our car insurance premiums didn't increase - I had initially spoken to my insurance company as to start with the parents refused to discuss any of this with me as they couldn't understand why I wanted the scratches repaired and couldn't just drive round with them

I think if this happened to my car I would do exactly the same. I think the mother should be held accountable.

Tensionwheels.
My insurance company did pay out on this type of claim, because it was considered negligence on my part, under the legal liability side, there are several other people on this thread who have had claims paid out in similar situations.

I really despise threads like this. An OP asks for advice on a incident which was caused by a mother not watching her child and the replies have been everything from armchair lawyers to wittering on about the OP's DW job.

The OP did not ask for advice about his wife's job. He has not come across as aggressive or angry. He's understandably annoyed about damage to the car.

The comments about the use of the word dude are just petty and a pathetic attempt to find another stick to beat the OP with.

I think that some posters just take an instant dislike to an OP regardless of how reasonable they are being in a difficult situation and the inner bitch is released.

The mother is accountable morally but unfortunately the law is NOT on your side due to the age of the child as others have already pointed out. If the mother refuses to engage with your car insurance company, you will get nowhere regardless of whether she has adequate home insurance.
This happened to me with a 15 year old boy who slammed his bike into my car whilst riding on the pavement ( I was pulling out of my driveway). He caused £1550 worth of damage and because his mother didn't like the way I spoke with her son post event she refused to speak with my insurance company and they would not take it any further as he was a minor. It was a nightmare really and very traumatic.
1 year later and some shitebag keyed my car causing £1800 worth of damage (they applied so much pressure there were curls of metal visible). Both claims were 'settled' simultaneously - upshot? My insurance premiums increased from £197 to £400. So all of you saying this is is what insurance is for, yes it is, but the consequences of all this have been considerable ( and will be for the next 2 years). I stil have protected no claims but one more claim and that goes too.

@Myinlawsdidthisthebastards - apologies if I'm aggravating you. Not my intent. I'm just trying to outline my position and am somewhat concerned that people are reading the headline post and are assuming things havent changed since I've had some ideas/feedback thrown at me.

Now your comments on how we plan our family finances - well. What can I say to that? You clearly have your mind made up.

I've never been talking about her leaving the workforce entirely, or even the secor. I've only been part of a discussion (with my wife) that she could consider doing it nearer to home. Money's tight enough here that money spent on petrol warrants a discussion. Just as we discuss my working situation, we discuss hers. If you're telling me that 'I have not right' when I'm also footing the bills (with her), well... We'll have to agree to differ.

The mother is accountable morally but unfortunately the law is NOT on your side due to the age of the child as others have already pointed out
That is not true for the umpteenth time.
Takemetomars
Your case is not the same, because a mother would not be expected to be supervising a 15 year old. The case above is that the mother is negligent because she was not supervising her 4 year old enough.

@MyInlawsdidthisthabastads : Back to reasonable discourse in good faith as it does sound like you have relevant experience we could leverage.

My hope is that the Nursery insurance may cover it as they chose to use the staff car park for access/egress.

If not, Union insurance seems worth talking to. As a punt.

Also, I think you might be wrong about the claim thing - I was advised when reporting it that if I ultimately didnt claim, then it would be logged as an event but not a claim. God know's what effect on the premiums it will have.

In terms of the 'gold plated repair', with respect, neither you nor I will know until Monday if it's write-off territory. As stated previously, I dearly hope you're right.

It shouldn't effect your premium unless you make a claim. You'd have grounds for complaint if it does.

I really dont think the police will get involved in telling the mother off OP, for the actions caused by a 4 year old child!, They are not there to parent a parent. Yes its a car park, but because a child is in a school car park does automatically make it unsafe.

Ds's school car park is the main entrance, however no cars are allowed in or out before and after specific times, (even if a teacher is late they have to find a parking space in the local area) and the car park main entrance is locked, the only access to and from the building is through a video intercom...

You state all this is on CCTV, what was the mother doing at the time? what was the mother doing when the damage happened? how much time did it take the child to damage the car was it 20 seconds, 60 seconds etc.... Did the mother see what her child has done?

I get why you went to the police as you would need a reference number for the insurers etc... however unless you take civil action you cant force the mother to pay out, or for the mother to take responsibility, as much as we as a society think she should pay up, legally unless you take civil action, she does not have to atm, and even then if you win at civil court you would be getting monthly payments.

Unless the mother has 5k sitting in the bank, and she willingly pays up, there is no instant resolution to this.

I do think YABU to think the police should be having a word with the mother about her parenting decision over her 4 years old action however. I also dont get why you keep saying the Mum should understand what happens if the car gets written of!, because the car wont get written off, however it may be beyond economical repair, in a category C-D

I do think the mother should pay out, however depending on her circumstances it may not be possible!.

Our car was a category A, after our neighbour drove into it parked on the drive we had to go through our insurers, and now our payments are higher than they were, but its the reason why we have insurance.

@Myinlawdidthisthebastards *what I'm taking from your posts re money is that you feel some sort of superior high ground because you earn more and pay out for her scrapes.

I find that infantilising and rather patronising*

Okay - I understand what you're suggesting. All I can say is I dont agree the actual scenario is that way.

I pay for the scrapes so I have more visibility on the costs. I'll be frank, my DW finds the practical side of resolving stuff like this really upsetting (conflict adverse, hates haggling) so I take it on, like she deals with stuff I'm crap at on occasion. It's a partnership.

Therefore, when we're talking about the family bottom-line, which events like this ultimate effect, it's my duty to bring up things that I have visibility on, like I'd expect in reverse.

When we talk career planning, as we do most years as a matter of course (it's a habit I formed when I worked in Enterprise), I bring my whole self and viewpoints to the discussion, as I hope she does.

Bruffin, I'm not commenting on every other case mentioned, just the OP's. I didn't say I've never paid a claim on a household ins policy involving a child - I have paid some claims. Every case is different & they are all assessed on their own circumstances. There isn't a blanket rule which says 'child causes damage, parents' ins cover pays out'. In this case, from what the OP has described, I'd reject the claim in its entirety. It would be up to the OP to take it further if he wanted to take on the cost of funding court action because as the person at the ins co making the decision to pay or not, I'd not pay. And if be confident we'd be successful in defending the claim too.

The OP might still succeed if he took it further, it all comes down to the courts & judges opinion etc. But given the child's age here I'd say his chances are slim to none. If the mother had stood back watching the child cause the damage there would likely be a better chance to get her found liable. But, she's been talking & simply not watching the child. It's not automatically foreseeable that the child would be causing damage to property & that's where I'd see this case being weak on the OP's side of the argument. The point is, this isn't a straight forward case that the OP is guaranteed to succeed with & he's got an uphill battle in getting money out of either the parents or any possible ins co.

Christ alive @Myinlaws ... I'm trying to be polite. I type formally - I always have. I dont want to engage in tit-for-tat and I'm trying to leave that at the proverbial kerb. If the way I word things offends you, I dont know what I can do to please you, short of just walking away from the thread. I dont want to just ignore someone who clearly has some relevant experience, but clearly I rub you up the wrong way. Please be assured I'm not trying to.

Glad i wasnt with your insurance company then Tensionwheels can we have the name so nobody on this thread uses them in future.

There is no way the OP would be getting such a pasting from some posters if he were not male.

Agree ilovesooty.

I dont see anything wrong with what the OP has written except the police should have a word with the mum

You did the right thing by police. As insurance needs this.

You should be pursuing mum for money

You should not have to drive around in scratched car.

YANBU