[quote=poly ]The school probably is insured, but it will have a huge excess (£5k or more) otherwise the premium would be stupid.
and as pointed out numerous times now, if the school isn't liable (and it's hard to see how it could be - certainly without more detail which completely changes the context) then no insurance policy will be paying out anyway - insurance companies aren't in the business of making goodwill payments.
If your wife is in a teaching union she may be covered for this.
From NUT website
• Malicious damage to motor vehicles in school or college premises
Cover up to a maximum of £500 for malicious damage to a member's private car or motorcycle while on school premises during the time the member is on school or Union business (excess £50). This enables members to protect their no claim discount for small malicious damage claims by not approaching their motor insurers. No claim may be made under this policy if the member intends to claim for the same incident under another policy.
The school also doesn't have a liability for replenishing the biscuit tin in the staff room - does that means that it would be (a) illegal of them and (b) establishes a legal liability to do so, if they pay for a packet of digestives?
Ah so it's a moral dilemma, could have told us that at the start.
If he had said that to start with somebody could have replied:
Just take the money
And that would have saved 3 pages (or 10 if you're reading this later on) of bollocks 😆
insurance companies aren't in the business of making goodwill payments
Depends if it's been on social meeja...
edlong - MemberThe school also doesn't have a liability for replenishing the biscuit tin in the staff room - does that means that it would be (a) illegal of them and (b) establishes a legal liability to do so, if they pay for a packet of digestives?
a) - unless they had lawful authority to spend money in that way and declared it as a taxable benefit then yes. 😉
Poly - the "bribe" is for allowing the school to cover up the incident / not suing the school - thats how it could be seen.
Does the school have legal authority to repair a car damaged in an incident for which it is not liable? Maybe under "goodwill" but I'd be surprised. As someone mentioned tho the status of the school could make a difference
Lots of speculation on this thread( including me) from insufficient facts tho 😉
I can't go into details but holding the student/their parents to account (financially or otherwise) or involving the police is not appropriate.
I'm confused here. Reading between the lines here, some scrote has damaged your property. They should be held to account, both legally and financially. No excuses. Otherwise what message is the school sending out? That it's ok to damage property and get away with it.
My wife worked at a school for severely mentally disabled students, the staff cars were regular damaged by students when they had a moment. The school paid for the damage.
The OP hasn't said that it's a regular school?
Anyway, take the money they are offering.
aracer - you are right insurers don't usually pay up just for fun; sometimes though for a small claim they will settle even if they don't think they absolutely had to because its cheaper than their costs to argue about it. We don't know why the school think they should settle it but "cheers_drive" suggests one plausible explanation and there are two or three others I can think of without trying too hard. Only a court could determine if they definitely were liable.
TJ - that's not a bribe. That is an out of court settlement (probably without admitting liability) it happens with all sorts of organisations all over the country, sometimes because its the right thing to do, and sometimes because its the easy thing to do.
I've no idea what delegated authority the school's management have. Ask the question another way, does the school have authority to reimburse staff's out of pocket expenses incurred as a direct result of their work at the school? Almost certainly. Is this an out of pocket expense. Yes. Was it a direct result of the work at the school - presumably the school are in a better place to know that than you.
[quote=poly ]sometimes though for a small claim they will settle even if they don't think they absolutely had to because its cheaper than their costs to argue about it.
Your experience of insurers is different to mine - IME they tend to deny valid claims in the hope you won't bother with the costs of arguing about it (it doesn't cost them all that much to simply deny a claim)! I note that I have relatively relevant experience here as mrs aracers' company's building insurance wouldn't pay for damage caused to her car when tiles came off the roof in the wind.
"cheers_drive" suggests one plausible explanation
He suggests a reason the school might pay for such things, not a reason why they might be legally liable (though if it's a regular and well known occurrence that changes things - but not necessarily in favour of those trying to claim against the school).
Just take the money if they have offered it, the poverty stricken state school will be far less poverty stricken than one of its teachers.
A poverty stricken teacher who can afford a brand new car 😉
A poverty stricken teacher who can afford a brand new car
Well I'd be poverty stricken if I'd just bought a new car.
A poverty stricken teacher who can afford a brand new car
I heard an ad on the radio for a Dacia something or other this morning, £9k for a brand new car. There are MTB's that cost that much 😉
Thanks for everyone's contributions and speculations.
An agreement has been reached, additional signage and netting will be put in place and she's parking elsewhere for now.
£200 a month on the new car has left her still poverty stricken but not homeless.
[quote=wwaswas ]£200 a month on the new car has left her still poverty stricken but not homeless.
She's sleeping in the car? 😯
