So, you buy a car privately. Your son-in-law gives you a lift to pay for and collect the vehicle. Having done the deal, you leave - but son-in-law tips over the step while leaving the haouse and falls heavily against the homeowner's car, putting a dent in its door. Owner sends you a bill for the damage to his car door - but who is liable for the damage? 

16 minutes ago, RMurphy195 said:

Owner sends you a bill for the damage to his car door - but who is liable for the damage? 

Well certainly not you 👍

It's between your son-in-law and the owner of the car that was damaged. If it was to go to court you wouldn't even get called as a witness since you had already left and didn't see what happened.

Your son-in-law is legally the only one who can deal with this. Of course he could counter claim for his injury caused by the trip if it was caused by a poor footpath or defective step. Much as he was doing you a favour it is not your case to intervene and you could end up putting yourself in a bad legal position if you attempt to.

9 minutes ago, unofix said:

Your son-in-law is legally the only one who can deal with this. Of course he could counter claim for his injury caused by the trip if it was caused by a poor footpath or defective step. 

Rings bells! There's a one way street near us, someone gets a Nissan Leaf Lekky car, the street the car is on is all terraced houses, car was parked two doors away, electric cable out the window onto the kerb, cable running through a large humped section of plastic, a bloke walking by at night doesn't see the big black long cable housing and trips over it, going over badly and taking off a door mirror and denting a car door in his fall, car owner is outside straight away, giving him grief, telling him you'll have to pay for the damage of my car, last time i knew the bloke who tripped over on the black cable protector was also suing them [Leaf owner]

Case 1 - I agree with Unofix.

case 2 - I'd suggest the guy who draped a cable (under a cover or not) across the footpath. This is likely to be an increasing issue as EVs become more prevalent.

On a lighter note, I once fell off my own back step and dented my own car! Fortunately it was a company lease car and repaired in our own bodyshop!

Not called Frank Spencer is he?

As above though, depends on whether there was any damage to the path or whether it was caused by a simple lack of observation.

If there was damage then are we sure the seller was a homeowner?  If it's a rented property then it'll be the landlords liability.

56 minutes ago, Eric Bloodaxe said:

case 2 - I'd suggest the guy who draped a cable (under a cover or not) across the footpath. This is likely to be an increasing issue as EVs become more prevalent.

When he first used put the cable out his window, it drooped down and was at neck height, held up by a 5 foot wood stick on the road, trapped by the mirror being folded in, a few times I used to rag at the cable making a right noise at the window, cable slapping on the side of his car......Followed by...''Why is there a f*kin cable in my way'' seeing the wood stick pulled down several times too, then one morning seeing the stick snapped in half.....A few weeks in he got the message that he can't keep doing what he was doing, then came the black cable guard which is a hazard in itself......Worst thing is this hazard is put out overnight, potentially a very bad trip hazard  

EV charging cables defo' a very big problem.

Not just EV charging cables.  One of my neighbours has taken to regularly hanging a smartcharger cable across the pavement at about 2ft high!  I genuinely don't understand how anyone can be so oblivious to the fact they're blocking a pedestrian pathway.  (It's on private property which I suppose means it isn't illegal).

 

25 minutes ago, TomsFocus said:

One of my neighbours has taken to regularly hanging a smartcharger cable across the pavement at about 2ft high

I saw a lot of similar things during the Covid lockdowns - not all of them recent Fords😀

Hope the OP doesn't mind the EV cable posts ? It's keeping his thread interesting though! 

This one was a classic report on the news......Bloke buys EV car, makes himself a nice hard standing and sorts the grass verg out 'but' doesn't have a dropped kerb, council come out and tells him the drive is illegal and must stop using the drive, they advise him to get a dropped kerb installed, then he can use his hard standing, he refuses so the council comes out and erects a steel barrier in front of the hard standing.......

It's the future   

He hasn't 'sorted' the grass verge.  And he doesn't own it anyway.  It's always been illegal to drive over a pavement without a dropped kerb.  Some people just take the p*ss tbh.

With out being there with a tape measure, it looks like the distance from the front of the house to the edge of the footpath would not be long enough to avoid an average sized vehicle from encroaching over the public footpath when parked. The minimum length in front of a garage is usually 6M but some councils will reduce this to 5.5M if there is no garage and it it is just a parking stand.

Back to the original question, who's liable?

 

Obviously, it's the cyclist! 😀

A conversation will be had with CAB or someone during the next few days I suspect.

As for the repair - its a new-model Peugeot of some sort, the owner took it to the main dealer for a quote (it is very new after all) - the expected couple of hundred quid which my friend had expected, and would have paid without telling his son-in-law, turned out to be a tad more - they want to fit a complete new door, estimate a little over 5k - plus VAT! For a fist-sized dent where the paint isn't damaged.

Its been a bad week for my friend (he's the one that bought the car and was given a lift). He went to visit his son Friday evg. At about 9:30 his daughter turned up and all was OK.  20 mins later a neighbour heard a commotion outside, looked out and saw a car driving off at high speed. My friend's car - an immaculate Corolla Hybrid, was now missing the drivers door window, its bonnet, both front wings and the front bumper assembly complete with light clusters! Thoughts are it was stolen to order by someone who knew exactly how to get the bits they needed. So that's another 50-year no claim record gone up in smoke

10 minutes ago, RMurphy195 said:

20 mins later a neighbour heard a commotion outside, looked out and saw a car driving off at high speed. My friend's car - an immaculate Corolla Hybrid, was now missing the drivers door window, its bonnet, both front wings and the front bumper assembly complete with light clusters!

This sounds a little strange to say the least. So in only 20 minutes all of those parts were removed from the car, including the drivers window ? and the bonnet !!

Even a mechanic with full garage facilities would take longer than 20 minutes just to remove a window. Then a car was seen speeding off with presumably all the part somehow inside including a bonnet, two wings and a front bumper ! How big was this 'get away' car ?

I suspect there is more to the story than perhaps you have been made aware of. If they do find the thieves, Lewis Hamilton is keen to employ them as a pit crew 🤣

2 minutes ago, unofix said:

This sounds a little strange to say the least. So in only 20 minutes all of those parts were removed from the car, including the drivers window ? and the bonnet !!

Even a mechanic with full garage facilities would take longer than 20 minutes just to remove a window. Then a car was seen speeding off with presumably all the part somehow inside including a bonnet, two wings and a front bumper ! How big was this 'get away' car ?

I suspect there is more to the story than perhaps you have been made aware of. If they do find the thieves, Lewis Hamilton is keen to employ them as a pit crew 🤣

The window wasn't taken, it was broken to gain access.

On 5/10/2025 at 8:13 PM, RMurphy195 said:

So, you buy a car privately. Your son-in-law gives you a lift to pay for and collect the vehicle. Having done the deal, you leave - but son-in-law tips over the step while leaving the haouse and falls heavily against the homeowner's car, putting a dent in its door. Owner sends you a bill for the damage to his car door - but who is liable for the damage? 

If you were invited in remedy below! 

Counter sue for dangerous door step. He’s lucky he didn’t break his neck! 
 

1 hour ago, RMurphy195 said:

A conversation will be had with CAB or someone during the next few days I suspect.

As for the repair - its a new-model Peugeot of some sort, the owner took it to the main dealer for a quote (it is very new after all) - the expected couple of hundred quid which my friend had expected, and would have paid without telling his son-in-law, turned out to be a tad more - they want to fit a complete new door, estimate a little over 5k - plus VAT! For a fist-sized dent where the paint isn't damaged.

Its been a bad week for my friend (he's the one that bought the car and was given a lift). He went to visit his son Friday evg. At about 9:30 his daughter turned up and all was OK.  20 mins later a neighbour heard a commotion outside, looked out and saw a car driving off at high speed. My friend's car - an immaculate Corolla Hybrid, was now missing the drivers door window, its bonnet, both front wings and the front bumper assembly complete with light clusters! Thoughts are it was stolen to order by someone who knew exactly how to get the bits they needed. So that's another 50-year no claim record gone up in smoke

A friend of a friend had been left with just a shell of a car all clean and dusted in 30 mins, late in the evening. 
On Sister in law 1980 Honda Civic had a Stainless Steel exhaust and Cat stolen from outside her house in 2016 in Hanwell. This was likely  a person working at her garage as no one else gets near the car. 

9 hours ago, RMurphy195 said:

The window wasn't taken, it was broken to gain access.

I also read it as they'd stolen the window and wondered why anyone would do that!  

 

Back to the original topic.  Send a PDR guy to the owners house to get a quote for dent removal if the paint genuinely isn't broken.

21 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

I also read it as they'd stolen the window and wondered why anyone would do that!  

 

Back to the original topic.  Send a PDR guy to the owners house to get a quote for dent removal if the paint genuinely isn't broken.

Contact a dent remover. Likely £300 tops!

On 5/11/2025 at 12:32 PM, TomsFocus said:

He hasn't 'sorted' the grass verge.  And he doesn't own it anyway.  It's always been illegal to drive over a pavement without a dropped kerb.  Some people just take the p*ss tbh.

Where the turned up soil is he'd slabbed it, council removed the slabs and filled in the void with soil, would have loved to have seen his face after coming home from work 😁 😁 😁

I reckon everyone on here is raring to see any such pics of the dented vehicle! Is there any ?

9 minutes ago, Ian Lanc said:

Where the turned up soil is he'd slabbed it, council removed the slabs and filled in the void with soil, would have loved to have seen his face after coming home from work 😁 😁 😁

That would be causing criminal damage to property that he doesn't own.  I'm genuinely amazed that anyone thinks it's acceptable to do that outside of their own land.  I suspect he'd be the first to complain if the council started ripping up his garden!

17 hours ago, TomsFocus said:

That would be causing criminal damage to property that he doesn't own.  I'm genuinely amazed that anyone thinks it's acceptable to do that outside of their own land.  I suspect he'd be the first to complain if the council started ripping up his garden!

I really shouldn't be high-jacking the OP's thread but can't help myself! On the news maybe two or more years ago in Manchester or was it Leeds!! I forget now, but on one street people had made illegal driveways, dozens of drives, council telling them to refrain from using them as it's illegal to do so as none had dropped kerbs, alas they never listened, council then sending letters out of legal action to be taken, again no one listened, a contractor came out who drilled a hole in front of each drive, then driving in a resin post, thus stopping the drives from being used, some of the erected posts actually blocked in peoples cars, it made good watching & listening on the TV, many on the report cursing the council as to what they've done.......

Do it right and get a dropped kerb done and you've no worries.

On 5/11/2025 at 10:47 AM, TomsFocus said:

Not just EV charging cables.  One of my neighbours has taken to regularly hanging a smartcharger cable across the pavement at about 2ft high!  I genuinely don't understand how anyone can be so oblivious to the fact they're blocking a pedestrian pathway.  (It's on private property which I suppose means it isn't illegal).

Actually I'd expect that to be a breach of the Highways Act 1980. Footpaths are a form of highway. Pavements are a component of a highway. Even if the land on which the footpath/pavement is privately owned, if there's an easement giving members of the public the right to use the footpath/pavement, then blocking it by hanging a wire across it as described could thus breach that right of easement.

Furthermore, Part IX of the Highways Act 1980 covers 'Lawful and Unlawful Interference With Highways and Streets'. Under this: Section 130 provides protection of public rights, enforced by the council highways authority; Section 130A has some previsions for demanding that the authority secure the removal of obstacles; Section 137 is specifically about wilful obstruction, with penalties including imprisonment and fines; Section 161 is about penalties for causing 'certain kinds of danger or annoyance'; Perhaps more applicable than 161, Section 162 describes a penalty for 'placing rope, etc., across a highway'; and Section 178 interestingly (in terms of permissible solutions) explicitly forbids hanging an overhead cable over a highway without consent from the highway authority.

This government webpage discusses cross-pavement EV charging solutions: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cross-pavement-solutions-for-charging-electric-vehicles/cross-pavement-solutions-for-charging-electric-vehicles

Under the heading 'Removes risk of trailing cables' it discusses the hazard of cables running over pavements and suggests that this could amount to a breach of the Highways Act 1980. There are some interesting 'in-pavement' solutions pictured there that would avoid creating such a hazard.

Regarding case 2, I definitely agree that leaving a ramp over a cable out at night, causing someone to trip, it's your fault if they get hurt or damage something.

On 5/10/2025 at 8:13 PM, RMurphy195 said:

So, you buy a car privately. Your son-in-law gives you a lift to pay for and collect the vehicle. Having done the deal, you leave - but son-in-law tips over the step while leaving the haouse and falls heavily against the homeowner's car, putting a dent in its door. Owner sends you a bill for the damage to his car door - but who is liable for the damage? 

This is not straight forward. The son-in-law should really consult a lawyer for reliable (and insured) advice. I agree with what's been discussed above. Obviously your friend could not be found liable himself.

Having done a little research, the 'Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957' supposedly (I've not read it) places a reasonable duty of care upon whoever occupies a property, with respect to visitors. This would require the occupier to remove hazards where possible and otherwise make visitors aware of them. As discussed above, if the son-in-law tripped over an obvious hazard that the occupier could reasonably have foreseen tripping a visitor, then the occupier could be found liable/responsible for not having dealt with it or failing to point it out. If however he tripped in a way that could not have reasonably been predicted by the occupier, then the occupier would not be liable/responsible.

Looking at this article - https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/scotland/housing/neighbour-disputes-s/disputes-about-damages-and-repairs/ - (noting that it obviously doesn't perfectly match the situation, given that it's about neighbour disputes) when it comes to accidental property damage there are obviously two options available to the owner of the property, claiming on their home or car insurance, or trying to get the person who damaged it to pay. In the latter case the owner could try to force them to pay by taking them to court, suing for damages due to negligence. As pointed out in the article, this would only likely succeed if it can be proven that the person who damaged the property was acting without reasonable care. I.e. if they were being reasonably careful in their actions, then it may just be viewed as an unfortunate accident and they may not be forced to pay.

There's also the matter of the owner of the property taking it upon themself to choose who to have it repaired with and the manner of repair, taking away all control from the other party as to how much it costs. If the property owner were to take the other party to court, suing for damages, I would expect that the court, were it to side with the property owner, should take into consideration 'reasonable cost of repair', and thus not necessarily pass along the entirety of an exorbitant repair bill if the owner could have gotten it repaired perfectly well much cheaper.

Why did the owner not claim on their insurance? Perhaps concern for their premium rising? Perhaps not wanting the hassle of going through the insurance company. Perhaps just thinking it reasonable for the son-in-law to pay for what he (accidentally) damaged, rather than their insurance company. The main dealer wanting to just replace the entire door and charge thousands for it isn't surprising. I'm sure that a decent dent repair company would have offered a much more economical option.

I'd suggest holding off paying the multi-thousand pound bill; consult a lawyer; if it was all down to an obvious trip hazard, there'd be no need to pay anything because it's the owner's fault, in which case you could just make a good will contribution if you like, so long as you're careful not to unintentionally accept full responsibility by doing so; otherwise - raise the question of why the owner chose not to have it done through their insurance, in which case the son-in-law could have just paid any excess; get estimates from dent repair specialists to get an idea of how cheaply it could have been repaired; offer to pay such a sum, arguing it's not reasonable to pay thousands for a new door when such an expensive repair isn't/wasn't necessary, and not necessarily reasonable for the owner to insist upon a new door being the solution.

There's also the point of view that the owner, by inviting people to come over to their house to view the car that was up for sale, and furthermore inviting them inside, thus put their property at risk from such potential for accidents. It was not solely the decisions and actions of the son-in-law that led to this happening.

Edit: Revised that second to last paragraph which didn't properly convey what I intended to say.