Neighbour's Son Damaged My Car

[Burpingchimp]

My neighbour left there 16 year old son over the weekend and he had a party.

 

I went out to our car, which is parked next to the neighbours garden and noticed their rugby ball next to the back wheel of the car. As it was raining I just threw the ball over the fence, like we do with all their balls that come over into our garden, and thought nothing more of it. On the Tuesday I went to fill my car with petrol (I hadn't driven it since the previous Friday) and noticed 2 dents in the car, one on the roof line and the other in the rear wing. On further inspection they was a white residue at point of contact, the same colour as the rugby ball. It appears that the ball has hit my car and then rebounded off the wall and hit it again!!

 

I went to see my neighbour and she advised me that some other boys turned up at the party uninvited and ended up stealing and damaging loads of her families things. She said she would get one of her friends round to look at the car as he was in the trade.

 

A couple of days went past and then my neighbour came to see me and asked if she could give my number to the father of the boy who went to the party uninvited and caused the damege and stole her things, as he was willing to pay the cost of the damage and replace all her things. I agreed but after a week I had not heard from him.

 

I went to see my neighbour again and she said that she can do without the stress and she would get her friend to come and look at the car with a view to repairing it.

 

That was a week ago.

 

I have had a quote done for the repair from my locar Renault garage (as it is a company car I would expect a Renault dealer to do the repair). The quote came in at just under £1000.

 

I don't expect that my neighbour is willing to pay this.

 

What can I do? Is it worth getting the police involved? Is it not criminal damage?

 

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Burpingchimp

[buzby]

Not good, to be honest.

 

I seriously doubt the uninvited guest will put his hans up to the damage to your car, and whilst his actions were reckless (in kicking the ball), you only have the neighbours suggestion that the boy caused the damage, which is not the same as proof. Guilt by association is not worth a jot, and as the neighbour did not cause it - so is not responsible either.

 

Assuming the dents only require popped out, a quote if £1k sounds to me the dealership don't want to do the work, or (as I suspect) farming out the work to a specialist company and adding their markup. Foreget about same-make dealerships, dented panels are dented panels, and a good local paint shop or a specialst like Dentmasters should give an accurate quote. Expecting recompense for a dingle quote from the most expensive supplier isn't playing fair either!

 

Won't be a police matter either - criminal damage requires intent, not being a stupid idiot and kicking a ball recklessly. If he attacked your car with a happer, then that would be criminal damage, but it wouldn't pay for the repair either.

[Burpingchimp]

The car is only 2 months old so I dont see why I should have to get it done on the cheap. If I can prove via witnesses who did it I will be expecting them to pay to have the car repaired at a renualt deal......wouldnt anybody?

[Dragons Dennis]

I can see why you are upset. Nothing worse than your car you bought with hard earned cash being damaged by an inconsiderate moron.

 

However, the problem I can see is proving liability. Without a witness who saw exactly who did what and a confession/admission from the 'accused' then you will get knowhere I feel. Your neighbour is not liable. Their son isn't either unless he confesses to doing the damage. For all you really know, it could have been a passing vandal or drunk. Similar colour paint to a ball is not proof in itself although I completely agree with you that it probably was a clumsy moron with that same ball.

 

I hope you do get it sorted out. But I fear you may be chasing for nothing.

[buzby]

You misunderstand. You are being shafted by the main dealer, not 'getting it done on the cheap'. You won't get far expecting that if you pay more you get more, supposedly because someonew else is paying. As this is a company vehicle, I assume it will be covered by their insurance so in reality you are a third party. Since most insurance companies sort out liability between themselves, since it will not affect you directly in a company vehicle, simply supply the details you have pertaining to the damage and let them sort it out.

 

IF you have witnesses, then you pass these details to your insurer, it is not up to you to pursue who you believe the miscreant is, although you might like to try since this would be a civil action and the police will not prosecute, you;d still be on your own. As you the Renault dealer being your 'natural choice' - perhaps so, but manyt Renault dealerships do not have paint shops (citing H&S requirements), so they outsource to the very companies you feel are a 'cheap deal'.

 

If I had caused the damage and was prepared to pay for resitution, it would not be at a rip-off carage of your choosing, but at one acredited for the task, and capable of guaranteeing its work. Which is exactly what insurers do.

[perplexity]

If the Police fob you off tell the lie that Buzby tells, complain to the IPCC.

 

 

Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 especially includes recklessness, to count as an offence:

 

Destroying or damaging property.

 

— (1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

With regard to Mens Rea, the advice to guide the Crown Prosecution Service is available here:

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/#a04

 

i.e.

A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to:

i) A circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist;

ii) A result when he/she is aware of a risk that it will occur;

And it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.

Similar colour paint to a ball is of course a proof, so long as the paint is available and the ball is available the two may thus be forensically matched.

 

8-)

 

 

Edited November 5, 2010 by perplexity

[labrat]

phorensically matched?? what the ****'s that???

 

remind me to buy you a dictionary

 

and i doubt seriously that they will do a forensics test on a football

[buzby]

Its always good to have some additional light relief.

 

But seriously, the chances of any meaningful police involvement is NIL. The suggestion will be to refer it to your insurer.

[mightymouse_69]

As perp correctly pointed out, criminal damage requires intent or recklessness.

 

The police should at least take some sort of interest. However I doubt much will come from it.

[perplexity]

It is not always so easy to get the Police to take an interest of any sort.

 

Nobody said that it is, nor are they paid to prosecute. The CPS are paid to prosecute. The Police are paid to investigate, with their own priorities to mind as they go, but if you fail to mind how you go yourself you could live to regret it.

 

There is not just the cost of a car repair to consider, there is also the education of the moron to mind or more to the point, the lack of it. Make no mistake, when they're allowed to walk away, thinking that anything goes is par for the course the rot sets in.

 

I have lived through this sort of neighbourhood dispute and seen how soon a relatively congenial situation turns to a living Hell.

 

Don't give an inch, or you pay by the mile in the end.

 

8-)

[labrat]

my general point is that its pointless in any case matching the ball to the car

 

its not the ball that would be taken to court but the person throwing/kicking it

 

even if the ball is matched to the car its still not going to lead to a conviction, theres no point carrying out further tests, due to spending a night out in low - freezing temps the oils left by fingerprints are likely to be deteriorated/destroyed due to freezing, thawing and condensation. in any case if a balls been kicked and left then there is unlikely to any fingerprints.

 

any boot/shoe imprints are also likely to be pointless as when kicking a ball the front/side of the shoe is used while most distinguishing features are on the soles caused by general use....

 

im sorry im rambling i just felt like making a post as useful and informative as perplex's

[perplexity]

 

The mind boggles, to suppose that it the Police should not be expected to investigate, in the face of this:

 

A couple of days went past and then my neighbour came to see me and asked if she could give my number to the father of the boy who went to the party uninvited and caused the damege and stole her things, as he was willing to pay the cost of the damage and replace all her things. I agreed but after a week I had not heard from him.

 

If you think it's OK for somebody to behave like that why not publish your address, labrat? We could send them round to your place to have a good time and help themselves, so keen you are to encourage crime, or get up the nose of those who would rather put a stop to it.

 

Edited November 7, 2010 by perplexity

[buzby]

You must be easily boggled. All there has been is an allegation, nothing more. The matters described have no relevance or evidentiary value to the OP, and would not be remotely helpful in seeking restitution as it's all speculation.

[perplexity]

Seems a shame to me, to bicker about a bogus issue.

 

According to the OP the boy is identified; the father is willing to pay the cost of the damage.

 

[buzby]

Just watch the Bank of Father shut up shop with a spurious (and possibly unrealistic) demand for payment to pop dents. The OP has no right to specify the highest repairer, depite what you believe.

[perplexity]

What can I do?

 

Talk to the father.

 

What he is willing to pay for (or not as the case may be) is for him to say, not for anybody else to be so impertinent about.

 

[labrat]

 

The mind boggles, to suppose that it the Police should not be expected to investigate, in the face of this:

 

 

 

If you think it's OK for somebody to behave like that why not publish your address, labrat? We could send them round to your place to have a good time and help themselves, so keen you are to encourage crime, or get up the nose of those who would rather put a stop to it.

 

 

 

i never said it was ok perplex you obviously didnt read it, i said there was little to no likeliness of ever proving who did it

[perplexity]

What is said, was not the point.

 

8-)