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?

"A rusty old banger may be cheap but is it roadworthy?"

If it's passed its MOT, then yes, it is.

That's why we have the MOT.

OP, be careful, Myinlaws doth protest a bit too much, with her PA comments re your tone and her "not area of expertise" legal advice. Could she be negligent mum?

I mention this because my SIL related an incident to a friend of hers who had vague legal experience and got a lot of (what turned out to be ropey) advice back, as well as dubious comments on our character . Luckily DP and I disregarded most of it as we had already taken legal advice, but it transpired that SIL friend was the other party in the incident and had managed to glean a lot of extra information from SIL, much of which helped her in her case. Fortunately for us we had an independent witness which SIL didn't know about, so that sealed it and we avoided court.

YANBU. I'd be really peed off.

I pulled out of a work car park, scratched a colleague's car. He did the right thing, got three quotes, one from Mercedes and fortunately one from a local coach works. Mercedes quoted £1000. He is entitled, by law, to choose whatever quote he wants, thank god he went with the cheaper one.

As you've informed insurance provider, expect premiums to go up, regardless of fault. My DH had to mount the central reservation to avoid someone coming off a slip road who wanted to be in the same space he was in (lane 2) and he was reported-for getting out of her way! Premiums promptly went up. It's so unfair.

Before she can make a claim she is legally obliged to mitigate her loss in any way she can. In practical terms, that means claiming in full for any repairs on any available insurance. Only then can she/you/anyone make a claim for an outstanding loss.

As per my last post claiming against insurance does not in any way mitigate the loss. It simply means the insurers will go after the child's mother rather than the OP.

I think you can only go of who is legally liable for this damage. Doesn't seem to be the parents if the child is four

It is the parents if they were negligent in not properly controlling the child. So it depends on the circumstances. In the circumstances described by the OP it is certainly arguable that the mother was negligent but without seeing the CCTV footage it is impossible to be sure.

Out of curiosity, are you American OP? I'm just wondering if that would explain some of the friction/misunderstanding re your style of writing/language? Not being critical, just curious (and missing the point of the thread entirely, sorry 😉)

And I agree, the most you'd get in small claims is likely to be the excess

If the OP has claimed from his insurers then yes, he will only get the excess. The insurers will get the rest. If the OP goes to court without claiming against insurance he will either get the whole lot or nothing.

If someone damages your car and you have comprehensive insurance that does not somehow take away or reduce the other person's liability. If you claim against the insurer they can go after the person who damaged the car to get their money back. In most cases they will also try to get your excess back for you as well.

Hope it doesn't cost to much to fix the car, Loopy. Hopefully the child's family have home insurance and can cover the bill.

I often debate whether I should take driving lessons and buy a car; I think I'll stick with walking and using the bus - far less complicated

I can't see your wife working in the school she loves for very long.

Parent power is very strong at school gates.

When words get around about this then her reputation will be affected.

Been out in the sun. Bliss.

@WhatTime Not American, but worked for a Canadian-American company for a while, so a lot of the vernacular cross-pollinated.

@EveOnline2016 - I presume you mean if we follow through (should the costs prove necessary) rather than 'parent power' pushing my wife out of her job for my independently soliciting advice on what constitutes a reasonable outcome from a relevant demographic off my own bat? Probably fifty grades of illegal to dismiss her for her husband's views I'd hope.

We'll see I guess, if DW decides it's worth the risk and it's what she wants to do. We keep discussing/I keep asking what position it might put her in and she seems comfortable enough so far.

I just want to know our options, at this point. Like I said before, it it turns out to be small potatoes I'll be paying the excess and moving on. I don't need to lose even more hair thanks :)

Had the child been under the supervision of a teacher, they might have a degree of liability.

The child however was handed over to its parent and under her supervision/care. Therefore if liability is placed anywhere it would be with the parent. Yes she should absolutely claim off her 3rd party liability on home insurance.

Or settle repairs in cash.

It's the decent and right thing to do.

Let's hope the meeting at school means that she does take responsibility for this and feels honour bound to put this right. The school being involved may force that hand slightly.

If I were her I'd feel terrible and do everything I could to put things right. I don't think I'd ever harbour ill feelings to the op dw in this, as its such an awful thing for her child to have done under her nose that I'd want it fixed and forgotten asap.

That said, I'm me, not everyone sees things the same way.

It would be very very sad to see someone pushed out of a job for sth like that and if it happened in my school I'd probably look to move away too as I wouldn't want such attitude affecting my kids.

However just for the sake of adding my two pence - if she has less than 2 yrs of service she could technically be sacked for sth like that. No particular protection attached to it that I can think of anyway... Of course over 2 yrs it would be straightforward unfair dismissal unless there was a proper argument for third party pressure, which I'd doubt very much.

Great. We are factors over 2 years. That's a relief.

Not that I want it to come to that mind. Hope I've made that clear.

I have just read the entire thread (totally over-invested) for two reasons. One, because I am interested in the genuinely helpful and informative answers as I am in a comparable situation to that of the OP with regard to damage to property by someone else's child.
And two, because I think the OP has shown remarkable restraint and clearly has the patience of a saint when it comes to some of the totally unreasonable comments some posters have made here regarding his 'tone', his 'attitude' etc, and the ridiculous assumptions that he is some sort of Neanderthal who would prefer little wifey to give up her job, that he is aggressive, and nitpicking over the words he uses etc. Are they even reading the same thread as me?

I'm almost willing him to crack and spew forth paragraphs of verbal abuse at everyone.
I'd kill for a husband like this

The law is as follows "If the child was escorted by a responsible adult at the time of the accident, it may be possible to take legal action against the adult, if it can be shown that the adult acted neglectfully by failing to oversee the child properly".
But the law also requires you to mitigate the damages as far as you possibly can.
In this respect it seems reasonable for you to try to claim on the Nursery's insurance and if this results in a cost to the Nursery then the parent would be required to pay that cost alone.
The other mitigating factor that is required of you is to minimise the cost of the repairs by obtaining a number of competitive quotes.
Of course you and your wife are upset at the damage - who wouldn't be.
And of course you are required to inform the police by the insurers and and to inform the insurers themselves.
I do not understand why your first course of action was not to send a decent and reasonable letter directly to the child's mother explaining what had happened and what steps you were undertaking and asking her if she was happy with your course of action.
No doubt your wife wishes to have a continuing good relationship both with the child and the child's mother.
It just seems a little bit counter productive and rather too early in the proceedings to be threatening civil court action.
Though - God forbid - if it came to the crunch - you would win - with some further hassle to both of you. And goodbye to your wife's relationship with them.

Mitigating loss does NOT equal going through insurance - as said above, all this does is shift the loss!!!

StableButDeluded
I've been reading the same thread as you. I started explaining to my DP about the thread and he started immediately getting really cross.

I think there's definitely a certain poster ITT that has been a goady fucker 🤔🙄

I haven't read all the posts (too many!) but just to pipe up and say that when my son scratched my car to ribbons with his bike (he was 4), I claimed through my insurance and it went through as "malicious damage" but with no person to pursue as such, as it was a child and accidental (supervision didn't come up as an issue as it happened in a split second really and was considered "one of those things")

Not sure if that helps at all...but my insurance covered it, possibly because I "owned" the child and the car, even though another vehicle wasn't involved...

Go find out how much it will cost to fill the scratches... people will come out to your house now to fill scratches in, (scratches don't usually need resprays)
Won't be expensive.

Legally The school are responsible for covering your costs, that is what their luability insurance is for.
They, in turn, can sue the parent if they want to. It's not your responsibilty.

I was curious about the legal liability for children, so did a bit of research. Children under 10 cannot be held criminally responsible for any damages they cause, as they are not considered in law to be competent in understanding the consequences of their actions.

But you can absolutely go after the adults who were in charge of them for negligence, and therefore legal liability for the damage, if they were not properly supervising a child in their care (whether parents or not).

There is also a suggestion that many people are covered by their buildings and contents insurance for legal liability for damages caused to a third party. Mum might well choke on the thought of having to pay up to £8K for car repairs, but if she has insurance that will cover it, she might feel happier in putting in an insurance claim.

The problem is that people may well agree to compensate you when initially feeling guilty, or when cornered in a meeting. However, when reality bites and they are looking at having to take out a loan to finance such a big bill, they might drag their feet. You don't want to get into a position where they offer payments, as you will have this hanging over you for the next several years while they pay it off. What do you do then if payments are late/missing, their financial circumstances change and they claim they can no longer pay you as much/at all? Hugely stressing for you.

If they don't immediately admit liability in the meeting and agree to settle the full cost, I would just go straight to County court and make a claim. It takes 30 minutes to fill in an online claim form and you can claim up to £100,000. That way, if you get a County Court Judgment against them and they fail to pay, you can involve the bailiffs.

You are not being unreasonable to want to have your car restored to the condition it was in before her child damaged it.

OP, people are just stating pros and cons, sometimes a little bluntly but some speaking from personal experience.

I don't think anyone is attacking you. Most people accept your reasons for wanting to go, but believe from what you say about your MIL's apparent attitude to you that living with her would be a mistake, whether or not it was by her own suggestion.

@Topseyt - Cross post I assume?

Stablebutdeluded I totally agree with you. I think op has demonstrated considerable restraint in the face of much goading. Myinlaws, you in particular seem to have a personal vendetta against him! I lurk, I rarely comment, but some of the comments on here have really riled me. So he types in a formal disourse; so what? So he's taken steps to make sure he doesn't get shat on from a great height financially; good for him! So he shows concern for, and interest in, his wife and her career; how dare he??? So he DARED to post on a largely female forum (and quite frankly some posters on here just re-enforce negative gender stereotypes) to get advice and for a few it's like lions circling an injured wildebeest. Get. A Grip. OP, I hope it gets sorted satisfactorily and with minimal stress, inconvenience and financial outlay to anyone involved (as you have repeatedly stated is your wish). I for one will be checking for updates with fingers crossed.