13 year old runs over wife's Porsche

[7795]

Davel said:

Talk to the parents and then decide your next step.

This would be my course of action.

[spikyone]

paolow said:

A sorry situation indeed. The trouble is that even if the parents say 'yeah we'll pay' expecting a bill for a few hundred - when the quote from Porsche turns up at 10k for a new roof the greatest likelihood is that they simply cannot pay it. It will go back to the the youth offending team who will recognise this and offer the excess or similar as the best compromise.
Id like to think a different outcome would be the case but...

I'm afraid to say, that's what insurance is for - and if OP's wife were to go to court, I would expect that she could only claim for uninsured losses (the excess) rather than the full amount. The concept that will apply is a duty to mitigate loss, which OP's wife would do by going through insurance. Look at it this way - if the offender hadn't been identified, would OP's wife pay for expensive repairs herself or go through insurance?

[schrodinger]

21TonyK said:

As to the lad getting a record, in some respects, that's a life lesson.

It's a fairly major "life lesson" though.

Like others I'd see what the situation is before acting. Child may be a generally "good" 13 yo who has done something stupid - in this case the whole going-through-the-police bit may well already have taught the lesson. OTOH they may be a right little scrote, in which case OP may need to push for something to drive the lesson home.

As OP has already categorised them as "meek" it may well be #1

[familyguy1]

your not Mat from carwow are you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnacOJWQkjk

ok you said its a brand new Porsche.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnTqfwMy6Uc&t=...

I guess as others have stated, its what insurance if for and you seem to have a very positive outlook on the situation.

[TIGA84]

danzltiu said:

Hurt him and his parants as much as possible and maybe he and they will earn to respect other peoples possessions in future.

Are you seriously suggesting violent retribution against a 13 year old boy and his family?

[Pete Eroleum]

TIGA84 said:

Are you seriously suggesting violent retribution against a 13 year old boy and his family?

It seemed to me he meant with either asking the parents to pay for the damage and/or prosecuting the child, given what the posters were discussing
when the comment was made. But if you'd like to feel outraged and start an argument, by all means carry on.....

[gruffalo]

surveyor said:

I was wondering where a 13 year old gets a wife who has a Porsche....

I'm in the camp of depends on parents reaction...

I had something similar many years ago, went the court route as even if the parents say they will pay for the repairs it is very hard to get it to court later when the deal falls apart as the crime will have been dealt with by the slap on the wrist.

I went to court and was awarded £1600 for the replacement of the softtop on my car as was quoted by the nearest specialist trim shop.

Court paid the dosh to me and got it back from the family concerned.

The only assured way to get what is owed to you.

[woodyTVR]

gruffalo said:

I had something similar many years ago, went the court route as even if the parents say they will pay for the repairs it is very hard to get it to court later when the deal falls apart as the crime will have been dealt with by the slap on the wrist.

I went to court and was awarded £1600 for the replacement of the softtop on my car as was quoted by the nearest specialist trim shop.

Court paid the dosh to me and got it back from the family concerned.

The only assured way to get what is owed to you.

Was yours done by a 13 year old that made a stupid judgment?

[Triumph Man]

chippy348 said:

I have found the lad via Facebook and in turn have found his parents who look to be separated so the broken home bit is there.

This is no excuse - my parents split up when I was 15 and I don't recall running over someone's car once.

[Some Gump]

Take it all the way.

if you let him off, you're literally supporting the lesson "be a , you'll get away with it."

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Triumph Man said:

This is no excuse - my parents split up when I was 15 and I don't recall running over someone's car once.

How many times did you do it then?

[Pothole]

quigonjay said:

I don't believe giving a 13 year old kid a criminal record would be the right thing to do in this situation, especially if not been in trouble before. I think recovering the cost of repair from those responsible for him would be a far more valuable life lesson.

I'm intrigued. Where is this imaginary line in your mind between what warrants a criminal record and what doesn't? Why does that differ from the law?

[Pothole]

ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:

At 13 years old you know that 'running over a car' will likely cause some costly damage. Otherwise it wouldn't be a dare would it?

I certainly don't know the legalities of all of this, but the law exists to assign an appropriate punishment. Frankly I think you'd be absolutely mad to let him off with a 'slap on the wrist.'

Assuming you'd want to claim on your insurance for the vandalism, they'll likely require the police report for any payout. Will they pay out if they receive a police report stating that you've taken no action against the person who committed the crime?

Edited by ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff on Monday 10th April 18:45

I would say yes. I don't think forces share disposal outcomes with insurers and that should not affect payout anyway, should it?

[Pothole]

lee_fr200 said:

I will tell you now he won't get prosecuted! I can guarantee it!

I've had dealings with a 13yr old who's done 10x worse and the police won't prosecute

best thing to do is spk to the parents and threaten a county court judgement for the amount! But I guarantee he won't get prosecuted social services wouldn't allow it and would fight his corner and he would get legal aid

How many times? THE POLICE DON'T PROSECUTE. The clue as to who does, or doesn't, is in the name of the Crown PROSECUTION Service.

[Porsche911R]

woodyTVR said:

Was yours done by a 13 year old that made a stupid judgment?

not sure the point here, only way to get the money is goto the count and claim damages.

I would give the parents 1 day to stump up the cost or it would have to goto court, where do you you draw the line ?
People have to be responsible for their actions even at 13 imo, or in this case the parents have to take the responsibility.

You can see what would happen if he was let off, others would do it as a dare as well knowing nothing will come of it.

We did not do this st when we were kids FFS, I am shocked that >50% people would let them off and claim on insurance.

Edited by Porsche911R on Wednesday 12th April 17:34

[DE15 CAT]

I don't know where this ruin his life with a criminal record comes from, most juvenile offences including criminal damage are only on record until age 18. then you don't have to tell anyone. (and the record is cleared)

So in theory up until you're 18 don't be a tt again or things get worse for you, I would have thought exactly the time to control tts then give as an adult a second chance (we can all make mistakes, for the bleeding heart brigade)

Then as an adult if you start being a tt again, let loose the dog of justice.

Before you ask how I know, I'm not an ex criminal. I worked for many years in the DWP (jobcentre) & when lazy scrotes said I can't get work because of a previous criminal record, part of your job was to ask what offence & what age.

Ah under 18 bad luck here's the proof on screen, now apply for these suitable jobs or your benefit may be sanctioned. Next.

[7db]

schrodinger said:

21TonyK said:

As to the lad getting a record, in some respects, that's a life lesson.

It's a fairly major "life lesson" though.

And what's the life lesson if you throw the book and it misses? Court is always a gamble. Press your advantage while the unknown is still unresolved.

Quick question is making the not prosecuting the child dependent on the paying of monies a form of blackmail? Do you have an honestly held belief that the prosecution is the right way of resolving the dispute. I think I'd be careful about making the one thing dependent on the other.

[Bigends]

7db said:

schrodinger said:

21TonyK said:

As to the lad getting a record, in some respects, that's a life lesson.

It's a fairly major "life lesson" though.

And what's the life lesson if you throw the book and it misses? Court is always a gamble. Press your advantage while the unknown is still unresolved.

Quick question is making the not prosecuting the child dependent on the paying of monies a form of blackmail? Do you have an honestly held belief that the prosecution is the right way of resolving the dispute. I think I'd be careful about making the one thing dependent on the other.

Blackmail is an unwarranted demand with menaces/ This is a perfectly warranted demand by the OP to get his car repaired being reasonably reinforced with the option to take the matter further. This isnt Blackmail

[PV7998]

DE15 CAT said:

I don't know where this ruin his life with a criminal record comes from, most juvenile offences including criminal damage are only on record until age 18. then you don't have to tell anyone. (and the record is cleared) . Next.

Not correct.

When a similar thing happened to someone I know they were cautioned. It stayed on his record and is still there (he's 24 now). Sure, it becomes a "spent" conviction/caution, but it's still there for the Police to see. I believe there are steps being taken to reduce the number of other agencies that have access to the records.

Unless things have changed in the last 10 years or so, even "Spent" cautions and convictions have to be declared to someone with an exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (Police / Medical / Teaching ).

A fairly big also is that most countries outside UK don't recognise the Rehabilitation Act.....so when you are asked by the US authorities for any contact with the Police you can't claim that it's a rehabilitated conviction. I know this because the lad I know has to visit the US embassy when he wants to travel there.

[7db]

Bigends said:

7db said:

schrodinger said:

21TonyK said:

As to the lad getting a record, in some respects, that's a life lesson.

It's a fairly major "life lesson" though.

And what's the life lesson if you throw the book and it misses? Court is always a gamble. Press your advantage while the unknown is still unresolved.

Quick question is making the not prosecuting the child dependent on the paying of monies a form of blackmail? Do you have an honestly held belief that the prosecution is the right way of resolving the dispute. I think I'd be careful about making the one thing dependent on the other.

Blackmail is an unwarranted demand with menaces/ This is a perfectly warranted demand by the OP to get his car repaired being reasonably reinforced with the option to take the matter further. This isnt Blackmail

Blackmail can arise from a perfectly valid demand. As I understand it, to avoid blackmail where you believe you have a valid demand, the menaces you offer much match the demand in that you must honestly believe that the menace is the right way to pursue the demand. I think the right way to pursue damage is a claim in the civil court, not a threat of enabling prosecution, hence my question about whether it was a grey area. Hence the idea of avoiding making the one thing dependent on the other so it is not a menace.