My DS cycled into a car and scratched it...but it was parked partially on the pavement!

[OlderNotWiser]

I saw it happen (in slow motion!) DS (aged 6) had been cycling up and down the pavement enjoying his new bike bell, but for some reason wobbled and went into a neighbour's car. The car has a bit of a scratch, nothing to my mind, but neighbour wants us to pay for scratch to be removed/repaired. I have apologised etc but not as yet said we will cover any costs. But he was parked partially on the pavement so I feel a bit snotty about it. Isn't doing that a bit 'at your own risk'? Who is at fault here?

SIOB, Trills.

The pavement parking is a red herring because it was known to the OP before she let her son cycle nearby. The unknown factor was his wobbliness, which falls within her area of judgement and responsibility. I think she misjudged, should offer to pay and hope he agrees to halves of the least expensive reasonable repair. She could suggest it would be better if he parks on the road in future (could go either way in terms of his response) and could involve relevant agencies if pavement parking is a persistent problem.

That the parking was illegal is irrelevant because the OP is not a vigilante law enforcer. The logic of trying to say the car owner was responsible is that, having parked on the pavement, he deserved anything that happened to his car and she was free to ignore its presence.

If a neighbours child scratched my car wherever it was parked I would expect the parent to pay for a repair. Similarly if my child scratched a car I would expect the bill.

whoops as in I have a (legitimate!) business of serious therapeutic nature and live in a small village... a ruck over the morals of a car scratch would not do me any favours in my line of work!

My husband parked partially on the pavement outside our house, and we received a visit from the local PCSO as a neighbours child from 2 doors down was cycling on the pavement (incidentally a cycle path) and cycled into a lamppost and sustained a minor bump of some kind.
The neighbour reported us as he felt that his dd's accident was caused by my DH's inconsiderate parking. In the end he just got a warning from the PCSO and told not to do it again, but I don't know what the outcome would have been if she'd gone into DH's car instead?

CTC do family membership so your children are also insured

Ivy, the family cover you refer to wouldn't cover the OP's son in this situation. There is reference on the FAQs on that link to there being no cover for injury/damage caused by a child. Which makes sense as a child can't be deemed negligent. They also seem to place an age limit of 13 on children - again, this would fall in line with the age where children can often be found negligent/liable, depending on the circumstances etc.

It would be odd for anyone to offer cover for a situation where the subject being covered cannot be found liable. If you believe the cover you have, extends to situations like the OP's then maybe have a read through your policy because I do believe you are misinterpreting what the family cover you have, actually covers.

I dealt with claims like this about 10 years ago, so I am a bit rusty, but the general rule where a child has caused damage or injury is that anything under aged 13 is fraught with difficulty in proving negligence. Aged 10-13 in some instances, you might be in with a chance. Under 10, and you haven't got a hope in hell of proving negligence on either the child or the parent. And where you cannot prove negligence, there is no cover for a third party who has suffered injury/damage. Like I said earlier, if you are the sort of person who feels morally you have a responsibility for damage your child causes, then yes, pay for it. You won't get the cost covered by any insurance policy. If you are the sort of person who doesn't feel that you should pay for damage your child causes, the person who feels aggrieved by that would have no way to recoup their costs legally, so all the threats and posturing would lead them nowhere.

Hope that makes sense. As I said, it's been a while since I dealt with these types of claims.

So if the child can't be deemed liable and the parent can't get insurance for that said child - then I guess the mother doesn't have to pay and the man can claim on his insurance - though if he is parked on the pavement would the insurance pay out if he is illegally parked?

Yes, the car owner's insurance would cover him for his damage assuming he's fully comp, but it's unlikely to be worth claiming if he has an excess, and then it will affect his renewal etc. If he did claim through his insurance, they wouldn't be able to recover their costs because it's a child who caused the damage and they can't be sued for the damage. Hope that makes sense.

It's just one of those things. It just comes down to whether you are the sort of person who would pay up or not, in the OP's position.

I thought I would Wade in, as ivykaty44 has rightly pointed out the law in London is "must not" park on a pavement but the rest of the UK is "should not"

It is all down to whether you are obstructing the pavement. The reason I know this is because I park a distance from school as I like the walk (in all weathers) and I park with two wheels on the pavement, but the pavement is a wide one & a woman with a triple buggy passes my car every day with ease. I don't live in London.

The residents of the street also park like this.

I agree the parking bit is a red herring, if the car has been parked on the road would you offer to pay the whole amount?

I have taken my children to a park to ride their bikes, if they encounter a car whilst riding to the park I have made them dismount & walk their bike. Even making one wait whilst I assisted the other child. The reason was because ds1 scratched my car on my drive years ago.

I would definitely pay for it. It doesn't make sense to apologise for it but not pay for it .
If it is not too bad then I would hope that, once you offer to pay, the neighbour will decline any money.

Good luck.

I would pay 100%

if some inconsiderate git has parked on the footpath its him that is in the wrong, footpaths are for walking on they are not built for cars and deserve everything they get whether tyres slashed keyed basically anything that will teach them a lesson. dont pay him a penny.

Zombie!!!