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?

And it is foreseeable that some damage may occur (not necessarily that which did occur - Re Polemis - as long as it is traceable to the original act (in this case, not supervising the child), then it is sufficient.

So a three year old unsupervised in a car park means that you can easily foresee damage.

OP, feel free to message me for any clarification.

I'm amazed a 4 year old would think this was acceptable.

I'm not surprised a 4 year old was left unsupervised. I see it all the time - mother on her phone not paying attention.

Said 4 year old must have been unattended for a good 5 minutes to have inflicted such damage.

Definitely you are not being unreasonable.

Myinlaws - I don't think that's a hugely relevant bit here. If, for example, it was exposed down to the paintwork and the OP did absolutely nothing and it went rusty then he would have had to justify not mitigating his losses. However, I suspect from his actions he is okay so far.

If his wife had been watching, for instance, and chose not to intervene, he'd be up shit creek because she didn't stop him i.e. mitigate the loss and would also have contributory negligence to deal with.

And yes, lots of legal debate!

@shinynewusername, that's not entirely accurate, parents can be sued in civil court for the actions of children even aged 4.

The OP is NBU!

My car (officially DHs) was in a car park..we were having coffee. Our car was one of several damaged by an out of control moron other driver. Other drivers insurance agreed full liability, we have guaranteed no claims bonus, rear bumper damaged, cost was just under £800 for repair with our main dealer (metallic paint with specialised protective coating) plus the cost of courtesy car. I repeat OTHER insurers paid out in full but our insurance still went up by over £100 on renewal.... even other insurers all said that ANY incidents in previous 5 years, including not at fault, have a significant impact on premiums.

The mother of the trainee hooligan small child will, hopefully, have public liability insurance (it is automatically included with my home contents insurance) and this will cover it.

Personally, I don't see the point of a meeting until the OP has actual
quotes for the repairs.

See, I disagree about mitigating losses through the insurance because it will penalise them financially for something that wasn't their fault.

If, rather than damage to the car, the OP had had a beautiful ornament smashed by a child throwing a ball in the room and Mum not stopping him, OP would be reasonable to expect Mum to buy a new ornament rather than claim on house insurance. This is the same principle for me.

Yes, OP will have costs going to court but hopefully Mum will pay before then and OP is likely to recover costs based on my analysis of the facts (I understand you disagree somewhat).

For the meeting, I would suggest that both OP and his wife attend given that he has stated she isn't great with confrontation and is uncomfortable and it is a joint financial outlay. This gives his wife some back up and means that there is full discussion. I would also suggest that OP requests a copy of the CCTV in case this does progress to court.

We're in agreement there @Myinlaws . It doesnt take long to do many £'s of damage to paintwork with a rock. I haven't seen the footage myself, but I could imagine it being pretty quick.

That said, some of the etchings of Dali Jnr are little more involved than a simple straight line, but little hands & feet move fast :)

...

So the vibe I'm getting is it's likely to go down to my insurance, even if she is covered.

Kind of what I expected in many ways. I also get the sense that they're unlikely to go after Mum to determine if she is insured unless it's something I push for, or she initiates from her end.

To be clear, I dont want to push for that unless the car is catastrophically damaged, but I need to be aware of what our routes are if it is. Because, in that case, our net losses will be more than the excess as the reduction in asset value will be significant. Roll on Monday.

I think he has a duty to mitigate his loss by using the fully comprehensive insurance that he has in place which will pay for the repairs and only leave the excess.

It is a constant amazement to me the number of people who seem to think that someone else's insurance removes or reduces your liability if you damage their property. It doesn't.

He could pass this to the insurance company but it won't make any difference as far as the child's mother is concerned. The insurance company is likely to come after her to recover the full amount including the OP's excess. Passing the matter to his insurers is unlikely to reduce the amount the child's mother has to pay and could increase it if the insurer's approved repairers are more expensive than the repairer the OP would use.

The down side of passing this to his insurers is that the OP may lose no claims discount unless they can recover the full amount from the child's mother.

If I was advising the mother of tell her not to go to the meeting.

The people handling it don't have the level of knowledge necessary to be fair and impartial and conduct it in such a way that it could be admitted in evidence later if needed.

At that stage, surely I need to involve the Police, to make sure the footage is captured into evidence in the correct fashion? If you're saying the school is likely to be a clown car when it comes to handling matters like this?

You'd advise her to not meet with the school or with us, yet others advise me to not talk to the Police or to the insurers until I've spoken to her?

You know what? I'm happy I'm looking at this the right way now. Try to keep the comms with Mum non-hostile but ultimately investigate our legal position in case this goes Pete-Tong. Worst case, let the insurers solicitors/solicitors talk about the guts of it with her, as the avenues for it going wrong are too many if we try to resolve it directly.

Also, yes. Minimizing stress on me, DW and Mum of Kid is something I'd like to achieve. Knowing my options will minimize my stress. Perhaps deciding there's a break point in 'expended effort' before we just say 'sod it, life's dealt us a lemon' and let our insurance company crucify us for an easy life will also help too. There's such a thing a Pyrrhic victory

Myinlaws, I don't know why you wouldn't even investigate whether she does have the money. She may walk in on Monday morning, cheque book in hand and it all be over.

OP, go to the meeting, be calm and polite and ask the nursery to take formal minutes. With regards to the evidence, no need to involve the police - civil burden of proof isn't as high as criminal - and all you will need is a copy of the CCTV putting onto a disk and ask the nursery not to delete it in case it is disputed.

Keep insurance in the back pocket but on a balance of probabilities, I believe you have a good case and the only sticking issue is going to be whether she can pay - you'll know more on Monday.

Best thing to do, call two garages first thing Monday morning and get two quotes then you can show her them and prove you're not just pulling figures out of your arse.

Meeting informally is more likely to be seen as pressuring her! If the nursery take minutes of the meeting, it can be recorded what was discussed and then she can't turn round and accuse you of bullying her.

If the parent doesn't have the money to pay, it's up to whoever is pursuing the claim to decide what to do about that situation - whether that is the ins co or the OP. One of the things we do where there is a sum of money to be recovered and it's been established that a person is legally liable to repay that money, we do an asset check to see if it's worthwhile trying to pursue the amount beyond getting the court judgement. Sometimes it's enough to just get the judgement as it will affect that persons credit rating etc it they have an unsatisfied judgement against them i.e. it will cause disruption for that person which in my current role is often as much as you can hope for (I deal with fraud just now so nothing like this case). I've had cases where it would take 20 yrs for the debt to be paid off and usually we'll either just abandon the pursuit after so long or offer to accept a lower amount just to draw a line under things and close off our file. It ultimately comes down to the person behind the decision and how they view/feel about things. My role is to assess the economics of pursuing a recovery that will go nowhere and whether we just leave it as an unsatisfied CCJ on their record or throw more money at trying to get something back.