Good afternoon.
My first post, so please go easy on me :)

Cutting a long story short, a 15 year girl came to my house a few weeks
back, and put her fist through one of my windows. She was arrested for
Criminal Damage and cautioned. 
As a result, I had to pay £125 for the insurance excess, a further £11
odd for the cost of a window that wouldn't be replaced by the insurance
as it was not damaged, but would not match the replacements, and a day
and a half off from work to instruct glaziers, ring insurers and to
take my younger daughter to a video interview to give evidence against
the girl. My wife had to also take half a day off work. In all, the
total cost we incurred was around £350.

I am considering taking the parents of the girl to the Small Claims
Court, to claim this money back. My basis for the claim will be that - 
as a result of the parent's failure to reasonably and sufficiently
control their daughter, she did cause Criminal Damage to our property,
and that as a result we incurred losses equalling those as described
above, and it is those costs we would like to claim from the parents of
the said girl.

Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over and
'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they were
prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125 excess
without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the basis that
we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just the amount
above - a lot more went on in the time between the incident and the
girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost, but we decided not to
even try and quantify that! So I sent off the response, and got another
one back saying that they were still only going to consider paying the
£125, and in essence, trying to put blame elsewhere.

Anyway, what do you think my chances of success in the County Court
are?
I have tried to negotiate with the Parents, they concede that their
daughter caused the damage (after all she admitted it and was
cautioned) but are disputing what I would consider are quite reasonable
amounts to claim - £125 + £11 + £115 (my daily rate after tax) + £40
(her half-day after tax) and £57 (my half-day after tax)
I don't think mediation would work here - they are blinkered to their
daughter's actions and the consequences of such action.

Any thoughts?




-- 
APH

"APH"  wrote in message 
news:APH.30b02b4@legalbanter.co.uk...
>
> Good afternoon.
> My first post, so please go easy on me :)
>
> Cutting a long story short, a 15 year girl came to my house a few weeks
> back, and put her fist through one of my windows. She was arrested for
> Criminal Damage and cautioned.

That isn't sufficient information. Was there an argument with a member of 
your household? Was she drunk/high on drugs? Was she hysterical/emotional?

> As a result, I had to pay £125 for the insurance excess, a further £11
> odd for the cost of a window that wouldn't be replaced by the insurance
> as it was not damaged, but would not match the replacements, and a day
> and a half off from work to instruct glaziers, ring insurers and to
> take my younger daughter to a video interview to give evidence against
> the girl. My wife had to also take half a day off work. In all, the
> total cost we incurred was around £350.
>
> I am considering taking the parents of the girl to the Small Claims
> Court, to claim this money back. My basis for the claim will be that -
> as a result of the parent's failure to reasonably and sufficiently
> control their daughter, she did cause Criminal Damage to our property,
> and that as a result we incurred losses equalling those as described
> above, and it is those costs we would like to claim from the parents of
> the said girl.
>
> Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
> received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
> 'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
> following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over and
> 'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they were
> prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125 excess
> without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the basis that
> we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just the amount
> above - a lot more went on in the time between the incident and the
> girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost, but we decided not to
> even try and quantify that! So I sent off the response, and got another
> one back saying that they were still only going to consider paying the
> £125, and in essence, trying to put blame elsewhere.
>
> Anyway, what do you think my chances of success in the County Court
> are?
> I have tried to negotiate with the Parents, they concede that their
> daughter caused the damage (after all she admitted it and was
> cautioned) but are disputing what I would consider are quite reasonable
> amounts to claim - £125 + £11 + £115 (my daily rate after tax) + £40
> (her half-day after tax) and £57 (my half-day after tax)
> I don't think mediation would work here - they are blinkered to their
> daughter's actions and the consequences of such action.
>
> Any thoughts?

My thoughts are that you have no case whatever against her parents.

You can however sue the girl, and as she probably won't enter a defence or 
come to court, you'll end up with a default judgment. You can then send in 
the bailiff to seize any items of value that belong to her - MP3 player, 
computer, bicycle, that sort of thing. Or her parents, mortified by the 
situation, might pay on her behalf.

I don't think a judge is likely to award you anything other than the actual 
cost of replacing the window.  You can't expect a judge to award you your 
time on a daily rate. If you can show actual loss (eg that you had to turn 
down a job of work or pay someone else to do it) that might be recoverable.

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 17:10:05 +0100, APH 
wrote:

> I am considering taking the parents of the girl to the Small Claims
> Court, to claim this money back. My basis for the claim will be that - 
> as a result of the parent's failure to reasonably and sufficiently
> control their daughter, she did cause Criminal Damage to our property,
> and that as a result we incurred losses equalling those as described
> above, and it is those costs we would like to claim from the parents of
> the said girl.

Will you be able to prove this alleged failure to take reasonable measures
to control their child?  I hope you do not plan on claiming their girl's
single act is sufficient to prove there had been 15 years of inadequate
parenting.  (Unsuccessful does not prove inadequate.)

> Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
> received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
> 'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
> following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over and
> 'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they were
> prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125 excess
> without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the basis that
> we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just the amount
> above - a lot more went on in the time between the incident and the
> girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost, but we decided not to
> even try and quantify that! So I sent off the response, and got another
> one back saying that they were still only going to consider paying the
> £125, and in essence, trying to put blame elsewhere.

I would consider that an unexpectedly good offer and I urge you to accept
it.  The cost to the parents will also focus their minds even further
towards parenting that winning against you in court would never achieve and
which might even embolden their child still further by instilling a feeling
of untouchability.

Tony

> Good afternoon.
> My first post, so please go easy on me :)
>
> Cutting a long story short, a 15 year girl came to my house a few weeks
> back, and put her fist through one of my windows. She was arrested for
> Criminal Damage and cautioned.
> As a result, I had to pay £125 for the insurance excess, a further £11
> odd for the cost of a window that wouldn't be replaced by the insurance
> as it was not damaged, but would not match the replacements, and a day
> and a half off from work to instruct glaziers, ring insurers and to
> take my younger daughter to a video interview to give evidence against
> the girl. My wife had to also take half a day off work. In all, the
> total cost we incurred was around £350.
>
> I am considering taking the parents of the girl to the Small Claims
> Court, to claim this money back. My basis for the claim will be that -
> as a result of the parent's failure to reasonably and sufficiently
> control their daughter, she did cause Criminal Damage to our property,
> and that as a result we incurred losses equalling those as described
> above, and it is those costs we would like to claim from the parents of
> the said girl.
>
> Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
> received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
> 'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
> following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over and
> 'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they were
> prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125 excess
> without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the basis that
> we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just the amount
> above - a lot more went on in the time between the incident and the
> girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost, but we decided not to
> even try and quantify that! So I sent off the response, and got another
> one back saying that they were still only going to consider paying the
> £125, and in essence, trying to put blame elsewhere.
>
> Anyway, what do you think my chances of success in the County Court
> are?
> I have tried to negotiate with the Parents, they concede that their
> daughter caused the damage (after all she admitted it and was
> cautioned) but are disputing what I would consider are quite reasonable
> amounts to claim - £125 + £11 + £115 (my daily rate after tax) + £40
> (her half-day after tax) and £57 (my half-day after tax)
> I don't think mediation would work here - they are blinkered to their
> daughter's actions and the consequences of such action.


You are unlikely to get more than £125 if you take them to court. You can 
only claim for losses that you have genuinely incurred as a direct result of 
the damage so the court is unlikely to accept that you and your wife needed 
to take the amount of time off work that you claim you needed. In any case 
like this you are required to mitigate your losses as much as possible. The 
court takes a poor view of not using mediation and if you do offer it and 
the other party refuse then you have a stronger case.

Peter Crosland

On Sep 8, 7:10 pm, APH  wrote:
> Good afternoon.
> My first post, so please go easy on me :)
>
> Cutting a long story short, a 15 year girl came to my house a few weeks
> back, and put her fist through one of my windows. She was arrested for
> Criminal Damage and cautioned.
> As a result, I had to pay £125 for the insurance excess, a further £11
> odd for the cost of a window that wouldn't be replaced by the insurance
> as it was not damaged, but would not match the replacements, and a day
> and a half off from work to instruct glaziers, ring insurers and to
> take my younger daughter to a video interview to give evidence against
> the girl. My wife had to also take half a day off work. In all, the
> total cost we incurred was around £350.
>
> I am considering taking the parents of the girl to the Small Claims
> Court, to claim this money back. My basis for the claim will be that -
> as a result of the parent's failure to reasonably and sufficiently
> control their daughter, she did cause Criminal Damage to our property,
> and that as a result we incurred losses equalling those as described
> above, and it is those costs we would like to claim from the parents of
> the said girl.
>
> Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
> received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
> 'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
> following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over and
> 'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they were
> prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125 excess
> without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the basis that
> we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just the amount
> above - a lot more went on in the time between the incident and the
> girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost, but we decided not to
> even try and quantify that! So I sent off the response, and got another
> one back saying that they were still only going to consider paying the
> £125, and in essence, trying to put blame elsewhere.
>
> Anyway, what do you think my chances of success in the County Court
> are?
> I have tried to negotiate with the Parents, they concede that their
> daughter caused the damage (after all she admitted it and was
> cautioned) but are disputing what I would consider are quite reasonable
> amounts to claim - £125  £11  £115 (my daily rate after tax)  £40
> (her half-day after tax) and £57 (my half-day after tax)
> I don't think mediation would work here - they are blinkered to their
> daughter's actions and the consequences of such action.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> --
> APH

My thoughts are as follows: consult a solicitor! You raise complex
issues, and the courts have little tolerance for those who do not know
the law - especially when it comes to a costs order!

For your information, however, I will address the points you have
raised.

Firstly, any claim will be against the girl herself, and not her
parents. Parents cannot exercise any real "control" over a 15 year old
and the courts would not expect them to. In fact you should simply
forget about the parents, and how morally outrageous their behaviour
is, because it is completely irrelevant to this claim, and harping on
about it will simply waste the court's time.

As for your costs, I am not sure that you would be able to claim for
time off work, unless you can show it was a *necessary* consequence of
the damage, and I can tell you that two and a half days off work
because of a broken window seems excessive on the face of it. If you
intend to claim for this, and would reject the other party's offer on
this basis, I would consult a solicitor.

Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!

So far as mediation is concerned, I cannot see that there are any real
disputes to mediate here, as both sides accept that the girl caused
the damage as described. The only question is your costs, and the law
will prescribe exactly which expenses can be reclaimed from the girl.

As a final note, for a person earning your salary, the cost of time
and effort will probably make court action a pyrrhic victory when
assessed economically. However, sending bailiffs into sieze the girl's
goods might provide personal satisfaction, and may be a lesson for the
girl.

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

>> Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
>> received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
>> 'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
>> following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over
>> and 'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they
>> were prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125 excess
>> without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the basis that
>> we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just the amount
>> above - a lot more went on in the time between the incident and the
>> girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost, but we decided not
>> to even try and quantify that! So I sent off the response, and got
>> another one back saying that they were still only going to consider
>> paying the £125, and in essence, trying to put blame elsewhere.
>
> I would consider that an unexpectedly good offer and I urge you to
> accept it.  The cost to the parents will also focus their minds even
> further towards parenting that winning against you in court would
> never achieve and which might even embolden their child still further
> by instilling a feeling of untouchability.

I agree - they acknowledge some responsibility and they're offering a 
serious gesture of amends.  Take it, and take the opportunity to establish a 
parent-to-parent relationship outside of the teen-feuds (you may need it).

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:f5f4a1b0-3800-4a1d-875f-12ab0bdcdd86@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...


>Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
>replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
>insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!

However, you would have to reimburse your insurers!

On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:30:10 +0100, Ste  wrote:

> Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!

You mean recover all the expenditures that were disbursed by the insurance
company?  No!  The OP was always free to make no insurance claim, leave his
excess, NCB and low premiums in place, to make the repair at his expense
and claim for that cost.  But he has no right to act as you have suggested.

Tony

On Sep 9, 1:05 am, "GB"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:f5f4a1b0-3800-4a1d-875f-12ab0bdcdd86@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> >replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> >insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>
> However, you would have to reimburse your insurers!

No you would not. You pay your insurance premiums out of your own
pocket so that you are protected from the full cost of any loss that
may occur, and having paid your premiums and having made a legitimate
claim, you are entitled to any payout.

The benefit of your insurance, however, cannot accrue to the offender.
They must be forced to pay for the full extent of the loss. Bear in
mind, the policyholder will not be doubly-enriched - they have, after
all, been paying premiums for all those years!

On Sep 9, 2:10 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:30:10 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> > Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> > replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> > insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>
> You mean recover all the expenditures that were disbursed by the insurance
> company?  No!  The OP was always free to make no insurance claim, leave his
> excess, NCB and low premiums in place, to make the repair at his expense
> and claim for that cost.  But he has no right to act as you have suggested.

Indeed, he was free to make no claim, and repair at his own expense,
with the cost to be recovered later.

The service from, the insurance company is something for which he has
paid out of his own pocket in the form of premiums. In the event, he
contracted the repair job out to his insurance company, but he can
still recover the full cost of the damage to the window (though that
would obviously not include "all the disbursments of the insurance
company", and I never said that it would).

So that, if the damage was valued at £200 for a reglaze, but it in
fact cost him an excess of £125 plus ££ per year in premiums, I submit
the recoverable amount is the full £200, not £125, nor £125 plus ££
premiums, for otherwise the insurance would benefit, not the
policyholder, but the offender!

On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 01:35:05 +0100, Ste  wrote:

> On Sep 9, 2:10 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:30:10 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>>> Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
>>> replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
>>> insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>>
>> You mean recover all the expenditures that were disbursed by the insurance
>> company?  No!  The OP was always free to make no insurance claim, leave his
>> excess, NCB and low premiums in place, to make the repair at his expense
>> and claim for that cost.  But he has no right to act as you have suggested.
>
> Indeed, he was free to make no claim, and repair at his own expense,
> with the cost to be recovered later.
>
> The service from, the insurance company is something for which he has
> paid out of his own pocket in the form of premiums. In the event, he
> contracted the repair job out to his insurance company, but he can
> still recover the full cost of the damage to the window (though that
> would obviously not include "all the disbursments of the insurance
> company", and I never said that it would).
>
> So that, if the damage was valued at £200 for a reglaze, but it in
> fact cost him an excess of £125 plus ££ per year in premiums, I submit
> the recoverable amount is the full £200, not £125, nor £125 plus ££
> premiums, for otherwise the insurance would benefit, not the
> policyholder, but the offender!

I disagree with that submission.  The claim is for damage sustained by the
claimant and not for damage sustained by the window.  How you plan to make
the argument that the defendant was liable for past or future insurance
premiums fascinates me.  Of course if you were able to present a credible
calculation for just the increases in future premiums or loss of NCB on
account of this claim, then I am sure that would form an acceptable claim.

Tony

On Sep 9, 4:20 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 01:35:05 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 2:10 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:30:10 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> >>> Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> >>> replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> >>> insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>
> >> You mean recover all the expenditures that were disbursed by the insurance
> >> company?  No!  The OP was always free to make no insurance claim, leave his
> >> excess, NCB and low premiums in place, to make the repair at his expense
> >> and claim for that cost.  But he has no right to act as you have suggested.
>
> > Indeed, he was free to make no claim, and repair at his own expense,
> > with the cost to be recovered later.
>
> > The service from, the insurance company is something for which he has
> > paid out of his own pocket in the form of premiums. In the event, he
> > contracted the repair job out to his insurance company, but he can
> > still recover the full cost of the damage to the window (though that
> > would obviously not include "all the disbursments of the insurance
> > company", and I never said that it would).
>
> > So that, if the damage was valued at £200 for a reglaze, but it in
> > fact cost him an excess of £125 plus ££ per year in premiums, I submit
> > the recoverable amount is the full £200, not £125, nor £125 plus ££
> > premiums, for otherwise the insurance would benefit, not the
> > policyholder, but the offender!
>
> I disagree with that submission.  The claim is for damage sustained by the
> claimant and not for damage sustained by the window.  How you plan to make
> the argument that the defendant was liable for past or future insurance
> premiums fascinates me.

That was not my plan. I'll say it again, I submit the girl is liable
for the full value of the damage to the window. In other words, if the
window would have cost the claimant £200 to repair, notwithstanding
that his insurer covered the bill, then that is the amount the girl is
liable for.


> Of course if you were able to present a credible
> calculation for just the increases in future premiums or loss of NCB on
> account of this claim, then I am sure that would form an acceptable claimI submit the girl is not liable for any cost relating to the insurance.

On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 05:50:11 +0100, Ste  wrote:

> On Sep 9, 4:20 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>> On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 01:35:05 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 2:10 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>>>> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:30:10 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>>>>> Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
>>>>> replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
>>>>> insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>>
>>>> You mean recover all the expenditures that were disbursed by the insurance
>>>> company?  No!  The OP was always free to make no insurance claim, leave his
>>>> excess, NCB and low premiums in place, to make the repair at his expense
>>>> and claim for that cost.  But he has no right to act as you have suggested.
>>
>>> Indeed, he was free to make no claim, and repair at his own expense,
>>> with the cost to be recovered later.
>>
>>> The service from, the insurance company is something for which he has
>>> paid out of his own pocket in the form of premiums. In the event, he
>>> contracted the repair job out to his insurance company, but he can
>>> still recover the full cost of the damage to the window (though that
>>> would obviously not include "all the disbursments of the insurance
>>> company", and I never said that it would).
>>
>>> So that, if the damage was valued at £200 for a reglaze, but it in
>>> fact cost him an excess of £125 plus ££ per year in premiums, I submit
>>> the recoverable amount is the full £200, not £125, nor £125 plus ££
>>> premiums, for otherwise the insurance would benefit, not the
>>> policyholder, but the offender!
>>
>> I disagree with that submission.  The claim is for damage sustained by the
>> claimant and not for damage sustained by the window.  How you plan to make
>> the argument that the defendant was liable for past or future insurance
>> premiums fascinates me.
>
> That was not my plan. I'll say it again, I submit the girl is liable
> for the full value of the damage to the window. In other words, if the
> window would have cost the claimant £200 to repair, notwithstanding
> that his insurer covered the bill, then that is the amount the girl is
> liable for.

I repeat my belief that the claim must only be for damage to the claimant
and not any other kind of damage.

To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length care
cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid for
the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?

Tony

Ste wrote:

> On Sep 8, 7:10 pm, APH  wrote:
> > Good afternoon.
> > My first post, so please go easy on me :)
> > 
> > Cutting a long story short, a 15 year girl came to my house a few
> > weeks back, and put her fist through one of my windows. She was
> > arrested for Criminal Damage and cautioned.
> > As a result, I had to pay £125 for the insurance excess, a further
> > £11 odd for the cost of a window that wouldn't be replaced by the
> > insurance as it was not damaged, but would not match the
> > replacements, and a day and a half off from work to instruct
> > glaziers, ring insurers and to take my younger daughter to a video
> > interview to give evidence against the girl. My wife had to also
> > take half a day off work. In all, the total cost we incurred was
> > around £350.
> > 
> > I am considering taking the parents of the girl to the Small Claims
> > Court, to claim this money back. My basis for the claim will be
> > that - as a result of the parent's failure to reasonably and
> > sufficiently control their daughter, she did cause Criminal Damage
> > to our property, and that as a result we incurred losses equalling
> > those as described above, and it is those costs we would like to
> > claim from the parents of the said girl.
> > 
> > Letters to the parents from me have already gone out, and responses
> > received. The parents have tried to attribute the matter to an
> > 'unfortunate accident' - though we received a threat on MSN the
> > following day from her telling my daughter that she would come over
> > and 'do the other window'. That said, the parents stated that they
> > were prepared to make a gesture of 'goodwill' and pay the £125
> > excess without admitting liability.  I rejected this offer on the
> > basis that we had also shown goodwill in limiting our claim to just
> > the amount above - a lot more went on in the time between the
> > incident and the girl being arrested, that brought on extra cost,
> > but we decided not to even try and quantify that! So I sent off the
> > response, and got another one back saying that they were still only
> > going to consider paying the £125, and in essence, trying to put
> > blame elsewhere.
> > 
> > Anyway, what do you think my chances of success in the County Court
> > are?
> > I have tried to negotiate with the Parents, they concede that their
> > daughter caused the damage (after all she admitted it and was
> > cautioned) but are disputing what I would consider are quite
> > reasonable amounts to claim - £125  £11  £115 (my daily rate
> > after tax)  £40 (her half-day after tax) and £57 (my half-day
> > after tax) I don't think mediation would work here - they are
> > blinkered to their daughter's actions and the consequences of such
> > action.
> > 
> > Any thoughts?
> > 
> > --
> > APH
> 
> My thoughts are as follows: consult a solicitor! You raise complex
> issues, and the courts have little tolerance for those who do not know
> the law - especially when it comes to a costs order!
> 
> For your information, however, I will address the points you have
> raised.
> 
> Firstly, any claim will be against the girl herself, and not her
> parents. Parents cannot exercise any real "control" over a 15 year old
> and the courts would not expect them to. In fact you should simply
> forget about the parents, and how morally outrageous their behaviour
> is, because it is completely irrelevant to this claim, and harping on
> about it will simply waste the court's time.
> 
> As for your costs, I am not sure that you would be able to claim for
> time off work, unless you can show it was a necessary consequence of
> the damage, and I can tell you that two and a half days off work
> because of a broken window seems excessive on the face of it. If you
> intend to claim for this, and would reject the other party's offer on
> this basis, I would consult a solicitor.
> 
> Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
> 
> So far as mediation is concerned, I cannot see that there are any real
> disputes to mediate here, as both sides accept that the girl caused
> the damage as described. The only question is your costs, and the law
> will prescribe exactly which expenses can be reclaimed from the girl.
> 
> As a final note, for a person earning your salary, the cost of time
> and effort will probably make court action a pyrrhic victory when
> assessed economically. However, sending bailiffs into sieze the girl's
> goods might provide personal satisfaction, and may be a lesson for the
> girl.

Its unlikely that a 15 year old girl is going to be in a position to
either pay you back or have anything of value that is likely to raise
any cash at an auction

Theres also the problem of bailiffs gaining entry , most people are
savvy enough now to be aware that they cant force entry

If the parents allow them in it is going to be very difficult for the
bailiffs to actually sieze anything in the house , they cant touch
anything that does not belong to the girl , trying to identify who owns
what will be vvery difficult especially if other children live there

The costs of going to coourt and the fact you are unlikely to get any
money off her if you win makes it pointless

--

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:66839ccc-38ee-448c-8bfe-14b0849fd6c5@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 1:05 am, "GB"  wrote:
>> "Ste"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:f5f4a1b0-3800-4a1d-875f-12ab0bdcdd86@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
>> >replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
>> >insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>>
>> However, you would have to reimburse your insurers!
>
> No you would not. You pay your insurance premiums out of your own
> pocket so that you are protected from the full cost of any loss that
> may occur, and having paid your premiums and having made a legitimate
> claim, you are entitled to any payout.

House insurance indemnifies you against loss. If you successfully claim the 
cost of the damage from another party, you don't have a loss for your 
insurers to indemnify you against. If, in the meantime, your insurers have 
paid your claim, you have to pay the money back.


> The benefit of your insurance, however, cannot accrue to the offender.
> They must be forced to pay for the full extent of the loss. Bear in
> mind, the policyholder will not be doubly-enriched - they have, after
> all, been paying premiums for all those years!

Well, the policyholder clearly will be doubly-enriched in the scenario you 
paint. Maybe not by much in comparison with premiums in this particular 
case, but suppose that much more damage was done, then the claim could 
easily have exceeded the premiums.

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:0q8cc4hloudvbgqr1jqltcqb13fh64nfhg@4ax.com...
>
> To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
> involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length 
> care
> cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid for
> the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?

I've said much the same to Ste in another part of this thread. The OP can 
certainly claim all his costs back from the girl, but if he does that he has 
no loss to claim against his insurance. It's a fundamental principle of how 
insurance works.

On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 11:15:18 +0100, "GB" 
wrote:

>
>"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
>news:0q8cc4hloudvbgqr1jqltcqb13fh64nfhg@4ax.com...
>>
>> To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
>> involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length 
>> care
>> cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid for
>> the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?
>
>I've said much the same to Ste in another part of this thread. The OP can 
>certainly claim all his costs back from the girl, but if he does that he has 
>no loss to claim against his insurance. It's a fundamental principle of how 
>insurance works.
>
>
>
In view of the apparent difficulty in getting sufficient recompense
from this family - I would suggest that the best thing you can do is
to return the favour.  

Chuck a brick through one of their windows!

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:48c64bc1$0$2927$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message
> news:0q8cc4hloudvbgqr1jqltcqb13fh64nfhg@4ax.com...
>>
>> To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
>> involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length
>> care
>> cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid 
>> for
>> the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?
>
> I've said much the same to Ste in another part of this thread. The OP can
> certainly claim all his costs back from the girl, but if he does that he 
> has
> no loss to claim against his insurance. It's a fundamental principle of 
> how
> insurance works.

Yes, agreed. The OP cannot claim the insurers outlay unless he intends to 
refund the money to the insurers. If he deliberately concealed the fact that 
insurers had made a payment he could be accused of fraud. If he pursued the 
recovery and then didn't pay the insurers, they could sue him under the rule 
in Castellain v Preston.

On Sep 9, 10:35 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 05:50:11 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 4:20 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >> On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 01:35:05 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> >>> On Sep 9, 2:10 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
> >>>> On Mon,  8 Sep 2008 20:30:10 퍝, Ste  wrote:
> >>>>> Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> >>>>> replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> >>>>> insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>
> >>>> You mean recover all the expenditures that were disbursed by the insurance
> >>>> company?  No!  The OP was always free to make no insurance claim, leave his
> >>>> excess, NCB and low premiums in place, to make the repair at his expense
> >>>> and claim for that cost.  But he has no right to act as you have suggested.
>
> >>> Indeed, he was free to make no claim, and repair at his own expense,
> >>> with the cost to be recovered later.
>
> >>> The service from, the insurance company is something for which he has
> >>> paid out of his own pocket in the form of premiums. In the event, he
> >>> contracted the repair job out to his insurance company, but he can
> >>> still recover the full cost of the damage to the window (though that
> >>> would obviously not include "all the disbursments of the insurance
> >>> company", and I never said that it would).
>
> >>> So that, if the damage was valued at £200 for a reglaze, but it in
> >>> fact cost him an excess of £125 plus ££ per year in premiums, I submit
> >>> the recoverable amount is the full £200, not £125, nor £125 plus ££
> >>> premiums, for otherwise the insurance would benefit, not the
> >>> policyholder, but the offender!
>
> >> I disagree with that submission.  The claim is for damage sustained by the
> >> claimant and not for damage sustained by the window.  How you plan to make
> >> the argument that the defendant was liable for past or future insurance
> >> premiums fascinates me.
>
> > That was not my plan. I'll say it again, I submit the girl is liable
> > for the full value of the damage to the window. In other words, if the
> > window would have cost the claimant £200 to repair, notwithstanding
> > that his insurer covered the bill, then that is the amount the girl is
> > liable for.
>
> I repeat my belief that the claim must only be for damage to the claimant
> and not any other kind of damage.
>
> To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
> involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length care
> cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid for
> the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?

Taxes are not a form of contractual relationship, nor are they
insurance policies which can one can opt into. And, I dare say, the
offender will also be a taxpayer.

And so far as I know, you *can* often claim for the cost of care from
the other party, however.

On Sep 9, 1:10 pm, "GB"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:66839ccc-38ee-448c-8bfe-14b0849fd6c5@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 9, 1:05 am, "GB"  wrote:
> >> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:f5f4a1b0-3800-4a1d-875f-12ab0bdcdd86@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com.> >> >Be aware, however, that you can recover from the girl the full cost of
> >> >replacing the window, and not just the insurance excess - you pay
> >> >insurance premiums for your benefit, not hers!
>
> >> However, you would have to reimburse your insurers!
>
> > No you would not. You pay your insurance premiums out of your own
> > pocket so that you are protected from the full cost of any loss that
> > may occur, and having paid your premiums and having made a legitimate
> > claim, you are entitled to any payout.
>
> House insurance indemnifies you against loss. If you successfully claim the
> cost of the damage from another party, you don't have a loss for your
> insurers to indemnify you against. If, in the meantime, your insurers have
> paid your claim, you have to pay the money back.

That seems reasonable.

However, it remains the case that your contractual relationship with
your insurer, does not alter the fact that the girl is liable for the
full amount of the damage.

Consider, for example, if you had cashed in goodwill with a friend,
and thereby had the window repaired for nothing. Would it really be
the case that the girl would be liable for £0, because it cost you
nothing to have the window repaired?

As an aside, insurers normally leave NCB intact if sums are recovered.
It follows, then, that the full amount should be claimed from the
girl, and then repaid (minus excess) to the insurer.


> > The benefit of your insurance, however, cannot accrue to the offender.
> > They must be forced to pay for the full extent of the loss. Bear in
> > mind, the policyholder will not be doubly-enriched - they have, after
> > all, been paying premiums for all those years!
>
> Well, the policyholder clearly will be doubly-enriched in the scenario you
> paint. Maybe not by much in comparison with premiums in this particular
> case, but suppose that much more damage was done, then the claim could
> easily have exceeded the premiums.

Indeed. I think you're right on this point - I have been looking at it
wrongly, and there will be double-enrichment. But this is not my main
point, rather my main point is that the girl remains liable for the
full amount, regardless of a claimant's insurance arrangements.

On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 17:25:09 +0100, Ste  wrote:

> On Sep 9, 10:35 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>
>> To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
>> involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length care
>> cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid for
>> the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?
>
> Taxes are not a form of contractual relationship, nor are they
> insurance policies which can one can opt into. And, I dare say, the
> offender will also be a taxpayer.

Well, substitute private care insurance such as PPP or BUPA and keep going.
 
> And so far as I know, you *can* often claim for the cost of care from
> the other party, however.

But, again, only for the claimant's actual consequential lost/cost/expense
and not some greater sum that in principle he might have needed to pay had
he never joined that PPP/BUPA etc. plan.

Tony

>> House insurance indemnifies you against loss. If you successfully
>> claim the cost of the damage from another party, you don't have a
>> loss for your insurers to indemnify you against. If, in the
>> meantime, your insurers have paid your claim, you have to pay the
>> money back.
>
> That seems reasonable.
>
> However, it remains the case that your contractual relationship with
> your insurer, does not alter the fact that the girl is liable for the
> full amount of the damage.
True

> Consider, for example, if you had cashed in goodwill with a friend,
> and thereby had the window repaired for nothing. Would it really be
> the case that the girl would be liable for £0, because it cost you
> nothing to have the window repaired?
>
I'm afraid so.

> As an aside, insurers normally leave NCB intact if sums are recovered.
> It follows, then, that the full amount should be claimed from the
> girl, and then repaid (minus excess) to the insurer.
Yes

On Sep 10, 2:40 pm, "GB"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > Consider, for example, if you had cashed in goodwill with a friend,
> > and thereby had the window repaired for nothing. Would it really be
> > the case that the girl would be liable for £0, because it cost you
> > nothing to have the window repaired?
>
> I'm afraid so.

I'm not so sure.  By good fortune, Ste described the situation as
"cashing in goodwill".  I think that's right, the goodwill has value,
and you can be compensated for the loss of goodwill.

On the other hand, the loss is likely to be less than the cost of
calling out a professional.

On 10 Sep, 17:50, Martin Bonner  wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2:40 pm, "GB"  wrote:
>
> > Ste wrote:
> > > Consider, for example, if you had cashed in goodwill with a friend,
> > > and thereby had the window repaired for nothing. Would it really be
> > > the case that the girl would be liable for £0, because it cost you
> > > nothing to have the window repaired?
>
> > I'm afraid so.
>
> I'm not so sure.  By good fortune, Ste described the situation as
> "cashing in goodwill".  I think that's right, the goodwill has value,
> and you can be compensated for the loss of goodwill.

It certainly does have a value, but I suspect some people remain
unconvinced. Consider, then, a barter relationship. Again, there is no
money changing hands, but it is clearer when we speak of barter that
the window has not been repaired for "free". Again, I submit that the
only fair way to assess the liability of the girl, is at the market
value of replacement.

I further submit that "goodwill" is in fact a form of barter, for
goodwill invariably arises either from past favours, or from a
liability to return favours in future. To consider "economic loss" in
the narrow, artificial way proposed by some posters, would lead to
manifest injustice.

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:48c7cda1$0$2922$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>>> House insurance indemnifies you against loss. If you successfully
>>> claim the cost of the damage from another party, you don't have a
>>> loss for your insurers to indemnify you against. If, in the
>>> meantime, your insurers have paid your claim, you have to pay the
>>> money back.
>>
>> That seems reasonable.
>>
>> However, it remains the case that your contractual relationship with
>> your insurer, does not alter the fact that the girl is liable for the
>> full amount of the damage.
> True
>
>> Consider, for example, if you had cashed in goodwill with a friend,
>> and thereby had the window repaired for nothing. Would it really be
>> the case that the girl would be liable for £0, because it cost you
>> nothing to have the window repaired?
>>
> I'm afraid so.
>
>> As an aside, insurers normally leave NCB intact if sums are recovered.
>> It follows, then, that the full amount should be claimed from the
>> girl, and then repaid (minus excess) to the insurer.
> Yes

In real life, people consult with their insurers and ask "do you want me to 
include your outlay in any claim against the other party"  and sometimes if 
the sum is small and there is no NCB to worry about, the insurers won't 
bother.

"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in message 
news:dd9dc4dplpvhb2lniq91shl5lnnltl62o8@4ax.com...
> On Tue,  9 Sep 2008 17:25:09 +0100, Ste  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 10:35 am, "Anthony R. Gold"  wrote:
>>
>>> To dig this fine hole of yours just a little deeper, in a situation that
>>> involved medical treatment would you be claiming for some arm's length 
>>> care
>>> cost because your own payments in taxes and NI contributions have paid 
>>> for
>>> the NHS that provided free care to you at the point of service?
>>
>> Taxes are not a form of contractual relationship, nor are they
>> insurance policies which can one can opt into. And, I dare say, the
>> offender will also be a taxpayer.
>
> Well, substitute private care insurance such as PPP or BUPA and keep 
> going.
>
>> And so far as I know, you *can* often claim for the cost of care from
>> the other party, however.
>
> But, again, only for the claimant's actual consequential lost/cost/expense
> and not some greater sum that in principle he might have needed to pay had
> he never joined that PPP/BUPA etc. plan.

In personal injury claims it is usual for a claimant to seek the cost of 
future *private* medical treatment even if he expects to get this treatment 
on the NHS. And it is usually paid, and the insurer has no right to insist 
that the money be refunded if not spent on private medical care.

>
> In personal injury claims it is usual for a claimant to seek the cost of
> future *private* medical treatment even if he expects to get this 
> treatment
> on the NHS. And it is usually paid, and the insurer has no right to insist
> that the money be refunded if not spent on private medical care.

One of the disadvantages of a lump sum settlement.