Would you pay for this?

[Lockerlocker]

Received a phone call from DS16s school last week to say him and another child had been involved in an incident where they had both kicked a locker, they have viewed the CCTV to confirm it was them. He explained DS would be excluded and we would be billed for the locker as they had damaged it. As there was two boys involved they bill would be halved. Fair enough. Makes sense we are billed for the locker.

Friday, I receive an email followed by the letter in the post yesterday to say that the single locker can’t be replaced so we have to pay for the column of lockers, adding that the lockers are on show in the corridor and it ruins the atheistic and the locker is now not functional. So I’m still sort of in agreement. The cost of the four lockers is £156.06 so our bill is £79.03.

Then I open the photo they have sent me (picture 1), the bottom locker is already clearly without a door (there is no suggestion that my DS was involved in this). I show my DS the photo, he states that it doesn’t look like the picture at all and that the girl is still using the locker. He said several of lockers have dents in and they have not been replaced. He has then sent me photos of the block showing the dinted lockers and the locker now.

I think I should only be charged for the broken locker and at a push 3 out of 4 lockers.

Not to drip feed, not sure it’s relevant, it’s an alternate provision. DS has an ASD & ADHD diagnosis. However I don’t believe he was having a melt down at the time of the incident.

He needs to pay. It is likely they just never found evidence for the other locker damage and cant afford to replace yet, but that does not negate you being responsibile to replace the column for the locker your ds damaged.

Hope you make him pay for the damage either out of his pocket money /savings or with chores at NMW for his age.

I agree. I think you should be asking to contribute towards 1/4 of the replacement rather than half on the basis it already needed replacement but I probably would just suck it up tbh as the consequences are for your sons benefit.

I think you should pay half the depreciated value as they obviously were not replacing the lockers despite prior damage they are only replacing it now they have someone to pay it for them can't blame them but play fairly

And don't tell ds your negotiations he really doesn't need to know your chalkenging it

also I would like evidence they have actually replaced the lockers

Your son needs to learn there are consequences to his violent behaviour. What was the reason for kicking in this girls locker?

make him pay it back out of his own money.

Absolutely not.

Perhaps the column didnt need replaced now as they had enough lockers without the one at the bottom?

The school have probably passed on the cost to you and other parent to replace the lot but who can blame them tbh.

I think by saying that you’ll only pay some of it misses the point on your DS taking responsibility for what he’s done; school are a bit cheeky and misleading to say that it’s ruins the aesthetic when there’s already a broken and dented one but the lesson for your DS is that he caused damage and he has to be responsible for the entire repair (I hope it’s coming out of his money). The fact the girl can use the locker is not really anything to do with it as why should she have to have a broken locker because of your DS which she has no choice about using.
If he damaged a car door that needed to be replaced would you say you’re only paying part because it was already scratched?
also he’s 16 and if he did that outside of school the police would be called so not sure you can risk thinking that his mum will help him shirk responsibility

Looks to just be the door that he damaged?

Stop minimising his actions. He deliberately kicked in a girl's locker - which, in itself, needs addressing. The fact she still uses it is irrelevant. You pay & then make him pay you back.

Pay it and make the little pay you back. Stop making excuses for him. He learns now as if he did this outside of school it wouldn’t be an option to bail him out and he’d have a criminal record. Stop being soft.

Also consider that the replacement of these lockers takes time out of the day of staff members when they could be doing things that improve life for students rather than sorting out the damage; their time costs money too

Just pay for the damaged door. School tried to make me pay for a full wall to replastered when my son hit the wall with his hand and a small piece of plaster roughly 3"×3" fell off the wall. I told them very clearly and concisely where to shove it
They didn't bother me again 😉

Of course the damage should be paid for, by your DS. Lesson learnt for him. I can’t believe you are even questioning this, would you except this vandalism in your own home, I expect not.

Hmm, it's a bit of an ethical dilemma. Paying for damage that you (your son) was responsible for is an excellent life lesson, however the school talking about the aesthetics of the lockers when there is already aesthetic issues seems a little bit disingenuous of the school and that would be an issue for me tbh. I would probably pay it though. There is still a lesson in there - and physically damaging school property in the manner your son and his friend did is really not on and the punishment could be seen to be replacing all 4 lockers. Which isn't massively unreasonable.

I think him paying for all of it is a small price to pay for learning a big lesson
serves him right

Can I check which bit is the issue - you said that DS said the photo didn’t look right - is there a suggestion this isn’t the locker he kicked?

or is it that they’ve made a point that the location of the lockers means it has to be replaced due to needing to look nice, yet it was already damaged so either a) they were already planned to replace it or b) they were happy to leave it damaged in view when there wasn’t someone to pay for a new one?

if it’s the wrong locker - you need to ask for the correct photo. If it’s that it was already damaged and due to be replaced anyway, then agree expecting you and the other boys family to pay for the lot is a bit excessive.

I would question if other doors have been damaged by other children, why is the cost of replacement not being split between them all?

This.

I agree that your son and the other boy need to see consequences (and I would be taking it out of his money, or making him earn it if he didn't have it) but at the same time I would be annoyed that he was also having to pay for damage that they didn't cause. It's funny how the school are suddenly concerned with wanting to replace the lockers, when clearly the bottom one hasn't been functional since before your son damaged the other one.

1/3 each for each of the boys and the school. That's fair. ALL parties need to take responsibility, including the school who should have got the other locker repaired previously.

I think he should pay for it, not you. You can 'pay' him minimum wage to do gardening and DIY jobs around the house if you like, for 8 hours, to cover the cost.

If you really want, you could argue that due to existing damage in other lockers in the block, you are willing to pay one third, the other boy's family pay a third and the school pays the last third. But they could say no.

The point is - it was wilful damage and he really needs to learn that is not OK and it has tiresome consequences for him. So do make him earn the money and pay you back in some form.

And that's a valuable lesson for her DS to learn!

Don't deliberately damage someone else's property, you don't know what the full consequences will be,

@Lockerlocker Write back and say that they are seeking 'betterment' rather than recompense. You have no problem replacing the one your DS and his mate damaged and the ones that are perfectly useable but now need to be replaced, as part of the column. But the one that was already damaged, has no door, was not affected by their actions and you don't believe it is in any way fair or moral to expect them/you to pay for the damage caused by someone else.

£156/4 = £39 per locker

x3 = £117

Divided by 2 = £58.50

If you want to replace like with like see if you can find a second-hand column of lockers and deliver it to the school. If that ends up being a huge hassle then I'd just pay the new price as someone has to spend time & energy on this.

It is unreasonable for the school to expect an older locker to be compensated for at new locker prices. And particularly unreasonable to expect an only partially functioning set of lockers to be replaced by a brand new, fully functioning one.

The school are trying it on.

I agree your son needs to be responsible for the cost of damage, but many on this thread seem to think he should suck up whatever the school ask for as some sort of additional punishment. That’s not reasonable. He’s being punished (the exclusion) he should compensate the school for the actual damage he’s caused, not be a source of school beautification.

I would respond saying that compensation needs to be limited to the damage done and shouldn’t be a source of improvement for the school and so you are only prepared to pay the initial agreed amount for half of one locker.

I agree. Nobody is disputing that he caused damage. The issue is that there was already damage before this incident. Therefore OP should not be picking up the cost of an existing problem.

I agree there should be a discounted element to reflect the fact that the column of lockers already had some damage (which spoiled the aesthetic) so if the school gets the full cost of a brand new column of lockers, they are getting a windfall.

I'm a lawyer specialising in subrogated property damage claims for insurers. In this instance the property insurer would likely pay out for the new column (if that was cheaper than reinstating the new damage) but with a discount on the full cost due to betterment i e the school would be getting something better/newer than before the incident damage occurred. A civil claim to recover the loss against the tortfeasor (wrongdoer) would be on the same basis. At law the claimant is only entitled to be restored to the same position as it would have been but for the wrong that has been committed, not a better position.

TLDR: Paying one third seems very reasonable as the school is not entitled to gain a windfall, legally or morally.

I agree your son should be held to account. If he has funds he should pay or at least make a fair contribution. If no funds he should recompense you in some other way (chores etc).

I’d certainly be querying if they’d intended to replace the block anyway given the bottom locker is not fit for purpose . Ask them had they already planned on replacing? I think say you’ll go halves on 75% of costs , but given aesthetics and use were already damaged they’d have to have replaced them already or accepted the crap situation

whilst I don’t think they’re being greedy, it certainly seems they’re going to benefit from getting someone else to pay for a previously useless and unsightly locker.

That locker now can't be locked and is jutting out so will hurt someone if they walked into/fell into it.

You should pay for the locker replacement and absolutely bollock you son for acting like a little thug