Advice badly needed, fresh driveway ruined by child

allybabe84

Freshly poured concrete driveway only hours old ran over by a young child on scooter three times, full length of driveway, in and out of the cones which were set up. Mother and other children were paces behind, saw what happened and continued on thinking they got away with it. Same family walked back past house hour later. Next day (Fri) they walked by house again and on return trip my bf and I went out to let them know we know it was them and they should pay for damage done. She claimed her husband was coming home that Sunday night to discuss it with him.

Hours later (same Fri evening) Gardaí were at our door, she called them saying she wasn't feeling safe at her home and we were going to smash her windows?!? Gardaí spoke to us to get our side of the story, which they were satisfied with. She claims she was rushing to work when incident happened and didn't have time to knock in to apologise. I told gardaí she had many chances to knock in but didn't. Gardaí said best not to go to their house but contact solicitor.
The thing is everything is on our cctv camera, the incident itself, her passing by multiple times and not coming in to apologise, her returning to look at our driveway minutes later after feeling "scared" etc.
We know our choices are limited with the child being so young, roughly 4 or 5 years old so it is not a criminal matter, but my problem is her getting the Gardaí on us just to wriggle out of having to pay anything or to prevent us approaching her house. Need to know the best solution to all this, I feel sick and stressed over it, so many things are happening at once that I'm finding it hard to cope with yet another problem.

Showed a solicitor video footage and he didn't even want to know or care, we felt even more deflated, I had put in a lot of effort downloading for hours the appropriate clips in order to present our side of the story.
Any advice is appreciated, is there anything we can do (a) to get her to pay for a resurfacing job and (b) calling the Gardaí on us and possibly lying in her statement?

Furasta

Get a estimate for repair of the driveway and then peruse them in court for civil damages and throw on idk 10/20% for defamation and filing a false report which you will donate to a specified charity.

drunkmonkey

Make a statement to the Garda through your solicitor, do not make it direct to the Gardaí. You could be facing criminal charges if she lied in her statement. Nothing you can do about it only defend yourself in court.
Keep your CCTV footage safe, this might incriminate you though if your seen saying anything to her and you've no audio.

gctest50

Mod
Post and images deleted. Image a bit strong for that hour in the morning

bigpink

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Make a statement to the Garda through your solicitor, do not make it direct to the Gardaí. You could be facing criminal charges if she lied in her statement. Nothing you can do about it only defend yourself in court.
Keep your CCTV footage safe, this might incriminate you though if your seen saying anything to her and you've no audio.

How would it incriminate the OP?

bigpink

bigpink wrote: »

How would it incriminate the OP?

The scumbag can claim that's when the threat was given.

Poll Dubh

You’re lucky the child wasn’t injured and that you are not liable for compensation. Sounds like the driveway was not adequately closed off. A wandering dog could have as easily ruined the concrete.

listermint

When laying concrete only an idiot would leave it exposed. I trust the OP had some cones up and had the area roped off.

If not then you didn't take sufficient caution to warn the public of the works beneath their feet.

For that you may blame whomever laid it for you.

Bonzo Delaney

Let's put it this way
If you were doing excavations on your driveway and a child cycled in, fell in to the hole and injured themselves
Who do you think would be responsible for the safe guarding of the excavation. Ultimately the home owner
Same with the concrete. It obviously wasn't screened off properly to protect from intrusions.
It's between you and the contractor .

drunkmonkey

It's between him and the DPP now with a possible civil case for damages to contend with after the criminal case.
He may have screwed up not boxing it off but defending the false statement is the problem now if the DPP decides to prosecute.

Peregrinus

Presumably the lady concerned has told the guards that you made threats to here when you came out of the house and spoke to her to tell her that you knew her child was responsible for the damage to the driveway.

Even if the guards beleive her - and they probably have their doubts - that on its own will not be enough to mount a prosecution. It'll be your word agains hers as to what exactly was said by whom to whom in that exchange. That's unlikely to be enough to secure a conviction, and thre will be no prosecution where there is no likelihood of conviction.

The advice not to approach them further and to correspond through solicitors is good advice. The more you speak to them, the more occasions there are on which they can allege that threats were made. Avoid them.

As for the damage to the driveway, there isn't really a lot of information in the OP. Assuming the driveway is on your own property and we're not talking about, say, a "driveway" between your front gate and the street, how did the kid get in? You mention cones, but was there any actual barrier? Or gate?

harr

To be honest OP you are probably getting away lightly with just a ruined driveway as others have mentioned you would have been at fault if the child had hurt themselves and if your neighbors are the likes to give a false statement to guards gods knows what they are capable of saying.
If you didn’t do concrete yourself I would chasing up the person who didn’t rope it off proper and left it open for anyone to walk on ... the person in my opinion who should repair it is the person who pored it.

drunkmonkey

Was the child trespassing in a legal context?

hullaballoo

Although I'd be concerned not to overstate it, I agree with others that the wrong here is the unprotected fresh concrete.

I'd be inclined to drop it with your neighbour, just ignore it and speak to whoever poured the concrete about redoing the job and properly protecting it this time so that you don't end up getting sued for an injury.

If you were careful about who you hired for the job and know they have insurance and have details of it, keep those details safe.

The CCTV in my view will show that you/your contractor exposed other people to the risk of injury and that at least one child came perilously close to incurring such an injury, if they were lucky enough not to actually be injured by the danger.

allybabe84

OmegaGene wrote: »

Who poured the concrete ?
Whoever poured it should have blocked off any access to the area before and after the pour, this sounds like amatieur hour of it wasn’t blocked off.
Injuries claim could ruin someone here.
Best thing to do is get some concrete from the same place the first pour was ordered from, half a metre or a metre depending on the amount that needs filing from the incident and fill it in ASAP and hope the colour matches

The concrete had red and white cones with the usual red and white tape around it, the kid deliberately pointed at the driveway to the sister (this our own driveway in our own garden), rode up and down on the scooter, the sister also stuck her finger in it and when he finished got off scooter to write some letters in it. We were watching driveway religiously up to that point but just took our eyes off it as I had to get ready to leave to look after elderly relative, and bf just went to make tea.
An experienced contractor of 25 years did the job and we were very happy with the work done which makes this more frustrating.

allybabe84

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The scumbag can claim that's when the threat was given.

The family are not Irish but Indian /Pakistan origin, we were making the analogy to the woman that if a ball smashes a window you would have to pay for window, police actually said to us "ah lost in translation ". The Gardaí said they just had to make it look good to speak to us which was all of two - three minutes

allybabe84

Poll Dubh wrote: »

You’re lucky the child wasn’t injured and that you are not liable for compensation. Sounds like the driveway was not adequately closed off. A wandering dog could have as easily ruined the concrete.

Driveway was closed off with cones and tape, I would expect a wandering cat / dog or even someone scribbling name at the part next to footpath on their way past but this kid ruined the full length of driveway right up to the window and back down three times.

John Hutton

allybabe84 wrote: »

The concrete had red and white cones with the usual red and white tape around it, the kid deliberately pointed at the driveway to the sister (this our own driveway in our own garden), rode up and down on the scooter, the sister also stuck her finger in it and when he finished got off scooter to write some letters in it. We were watching driveway religiously up to that point but just took our eyes off it as I had to get ready to leave to look after elderly relative, and bf just went to make tea.
An experienced contractor of 25 years did the job and we were very happy with the work done which makes this more frustrating.

Don't know what more you can do to close it off besides cones and tape tbh.

allybabe84

listermint wrote: »

When laying concrete only an idiot would leave it exposed. I trust the OP had some cones up and had the area roped off.

If not then you didn't take sufficient caution to warn the public of the works beneath their feet.

For that you may blame whomever laid it for you.

this was private driveway in the front garden, cones were around it and it was roped off. Many people walked by that day even a family with two kids on scooters but everyone else just walked past. Even some kids playing with a football nearby didn't touch it or come near it

harr

allybabe84 wrote: »

Driveway was closed off with cones and tape, I would expect a wandering cat / dog or even someone scribbling name at the part next to footpath on their way past but this kid ruined the full length of driveway right up to the window and back down three times.

In that case as it was blocked off and it looks like it was done deliberately and you have cctv I would get a bill for repair from contractor and send it to the parents and if no joy from that speak to a solicitor.
The parents of the child must hold some responsibility as they were with the child at the time.
To be honest I wouldn’t hold my breath in getting a penny from them.

Captain_Crash

allybabe84 wrote: »

The concrete had red and white cones with the usual red and white tape around it, the kid deliberately pointed at the driveway to the sister (this our own driveway in our own garden), rode up and down on the scooter, the sister also stuck her finger in it and when he finished got off scooter to write some letters in it.

So your saying the negligent actions of a contractor employed by you in not sufficiently securing a work site resulted in not one but two children's safety being put at risk, including both of them being able to make direct contact with a toxic substance?


While I'm not condoning what happened, if you took it further that's the angle that will probably be taken, which when you read it back, is factual and doesn't sound very good.

beauf

Fresh concrete is like a magnet to every fool, animal and child.

Any time we did a driveway we covered it with sheers of plywood or fenced it off. Sometimes even had to post a minder/guard on it for 12 hrs.

While soul destroying I think the cost of going legal will be so much that its not worth it. How long is the drive?

whippet

You need to be practical here.

Reality is the parents don’t sound like the type who will pay for the repair voluntarily.

I find that sometimes here the default position by posters is to pick away at the version of events given by the OP as it’s the only side of the story they have.

Personally I don’t think there was anything wrong in how the poured concrete was left with cones and tape .. parents have a duty of care to their children when out and about and to keep them safe from obvious hazards.

Unfortunately your only option is to look in to pursuing a legal remedy through a civil action. You will need to weigh up the potential costs of taking the action against the cost of the repair taking in to account the potential chances of being successful ... you will need to discuss this with a solicitor and then make your choice

drunkmonkey

Do you know if they made a statement to the Gardaí, forget about the drive for a minute your possibly facing assault charges. It doesn't matter how nice the Gardaí were at your door. You don't need to physically hit someone to be charged with assault. The Guards told you get legal advice. You need to do that asap.

lainey_d_123

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

Let's put it this way
If you were doing excavations on your driveway and a child cycled in, fell in to the hole and injured themselves
Who do you think would be responsible for the safe guarding of the excavation. Ultimately the home owner
Same with the concrete. It obviously wasn't screened off properly to protect from intrusions.
It's between you and the contractor .

So now people can enter your private property and it's on you if they get injured? What about people actually minding their little sh1tes and not allowing them to scoot onto strangers' driveways?

rd1izb7lvpuksx

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So now people can enter your private property and it's on you if they get injured?

That's always been the case.

allybabe84

Peregrinus wrote: »

Presumably the lady concerned has told the guards that you made threats to here when you came out of the house and spoke to her to tell her that you knew her child was responsible for the damage to the driveway.

Even if the guards beleive her - and they probably have their doubts - that on its own will not be enough to mount a prosecution. It'll be your word agains hers as to what exactly was said by whom to whom in that exchange. That's unlikely to be enough to secure a conviction, and thre will be no prosecution where there is no likelihood of conviction.

The advice not to approach them further and to correspond through solicitors is good advice. The more you speak to them, the more occasions there are on which they can allege that threats were made. Avoid them.

As for the damage to the driveway, there isn't really a lot of information in the OP. Assuming the driveway is on your own property and we're not talking about, say, a "driveway" between your front gate and the street, how did the kid get in? You mention cones, but was there any actual barrier? Or gate?

Just to clear some things I'm the op and female, I went out to speak to her about driveway, it was pretty much just pointing at it and and she even mentioned I'll get quote for resurfacing, she had all her kids with her, it ended amicably we just parted ways, there was no yelling/screaming, my bf had come out to back me up but from cctv you can see he's just staring at concrete there is no hostility, she called the police on him because he's the male even though I'm the one that called her.
The job involved widening the access to driveway also ie. front wall brought back with pillar moved, no gates. The front two cones came out slightly onto public footpath in the front, there was no mistaking do not come in. Concrete had been poured since early morning, the incident occurred about 3:30pm so it was still drying, not for walking on yet.

partyguinness

I doubt your CCTV is admissible.

If an area is being recorded privately and there is not adequate signage warning the public then you are breaching data protection.

But you should be fine anyway without if you went to District Court to pursue a claim.

lainey_d_123

Maya Few Mower wrote: »

That's always been the case.

Well, nobody did get injured. They ruined OP's fresh concrete and they should pay for it. They trespassed on private property and caused damage. Maybe next time they'd think about actually watching their children.

TheChizler

partyguinness wrote: »

I doubt your CCTV is admissible.

If an area is being recorded privately and there is not adequate signage warning the public then you are breaching data protection.

But you should be fine anyway without if you went to District Court to pursue a claim.

Which data protection law applies to personal use of cameras in a place of residence?

cobhguy28

Maya Few Mower wrote: »

That's always been the case.

No its not. The occupier owes a duty not to deliberately injure the recreational user or trespasser and not to act with reckless disregard for his or her safety.

There was no reckless disregard in this case.

Captain_Crash

cobhguy28 wrote: »

No its not. The occupier owes a duty not to deliberately injure the recreational user or trespasser and not to act with reckless disregard for his or her safety.

There was no reckless disregard in this case.

One would argue a child having access to a dangerous substance to be reckless

marieholmfan

cobhguy28 wrote: »

No its not. The occupier owes a duty not to deliberately injure the recreational user or trespasser and not to act with reckless disregard for his or her safety.

There was no reckless disregard in this case.

The norm would be to ensure that the concrete cannot be accessed.

allybabe84 wrote: »

The family are not Irish but Indian /Pakistan origin,

OMFG
It's dem dam furriners I tells ya MAGA.

Cartroubles

The parent was negligent with the kids. The area was adequately closed off and poor parenting led to them entering the property and causing damage. Tape and cones is plenty, some posters here seem to think you should have security men on 24 hour watch for a private driveway, same posters probably on constant lookout for situations to exploit to make a claim.

cobhguy28

Captain_Crash wrote: »

One would argue a child having access to a dangerous substance to be reckless

Concrete is caustic and can cause burns with prolonged exposure to skin but to be classed as a reckless act after being laid on private property and having it coned off is a far leap.

partyguinness

TheChizler wrote: »

Which data protection law applies to personal use of cameras in a place of residence?

The GDPR is the latest.


It is not clear from the OP and we have no pics as to extent of where the damage occurred but clearly it is filming outside the property and potentially outside the 'place of residence' but as the camera is recording the driveway it may well take in members of the public, cars, the neighbours, the public footpath etc which pushes it outside the bounds of personal residential use and the household becomes a data controller for Data Protection and the GDPR. It is also potential harassment if it is recording neighbours even inadvertently but again lots of 'ifs and buts'.

Gerry T

People ffs, the kid damaged the driveway, it's a kid, they do things like that and as a parent we should set examples. So the child should be shown what was done was wrong, that an apology is needed and the parents of the kid should offer to pay for the damage.
I dont know the OP but I'm guessing if that happened alot of people would let it rest at that. My guess is the repair went be that expensive, it takes weeks for concrete to go off properly.

GM228

The point to make out here is that it is well established that parents/guardians are not vicariously liable for damage caused by their kids, unless the parent directed or consented to the child to cause the damage in which case it is possible the parent may become an independent tortfeasor.

Captain_Crash

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Concrete is caustic and can cause burns with prolonged exposure to skin but to be classed as a reckless act after being laid on private property and having it coned off is a far leap.

I wouldn't say its a far leap at all. As an earlier poster said, wet concrete is a magnet for kids and all sorts and this was left in a state where two children had easy access.



The OP even mentioned they were monitoring the driveway after the pour, so clearly recognized the threat but didn't take action to effectively secure the new surface.

partyguinness

Take it to the District Court.

It tends to be the wild wild west and anything goes so you may get a result.

John Hutton

When I'm getting my driveway done I'll be sure to erect four sentry posts complete with snipers, build a giant sandbag wall, deploy tanks and launch a spy satellite to monitor the area.

Some people on here need to get real, putting cones and roping it off is plenty.

TheChizler

partyguinness wrote: »

The GDPR is the latest.


It is not clear from the OP and we have no pics as to extent of where the damage occurred but clearly it is filming outside the property and potentially outside the 'place of residence' but as the camera is recording the driveway it may well take in members of the public, cars, the neighbours, the public footpath etc which pushes it outside the bounds of personal residential use and the household becomes a data controller for Data Protection and the GDPR. It is also potential harassment if it is recording neighbours even inadvertently but again lots of 'ifs and buts'.

Depends on where it's pointing but if it captures the OP's property only it's exempt.

Alkers

Kintar&#197 wrote: »

Now not much to see in the video I grant you that. In full screen you can just about make out the van hitting the side of the BMW at around 4-5 seconds. It all happened so fast (and I was DYING to go to the loo) that I ended up not stopping. The BMW driver was totally without fault, they were well within their lane. It was just poor judgement from the driver of the van.

Calahonda52 wrote:

In the attached picture, the timbers are 5" deep and the drop off in the slope from front to back leaves the back requiring 12" of fill to top of timber. The base only need to be 4" concrete so looking for ideas to simplify the work. Need to finish the shuttering first of course Hard core not really an option as the back 12" needs to be solid and vertical when finished. Ready mix not an option either as is only wheel barrow access and my guess is 1.2 m3 [3 by 2 by .2] What about using a dry mix of cement and gravel as the base layer, leaving 4" for concrete? If doing that, how long would the dry mix need to be left to "go off"?

TheChizler wrote:

Depends on where it's pointing but if it captures the OP's property only it's exempt.

Either way, it doesn't make the CCTV inadmissible.

lainey_d_123

John Hutton wrote: »

When I'm getting my driveway done I'll be sure to erect four sentry posts complete with snipers, build a giant sandbag wall, deploy tanks and launch a spy satellite to monitor the area.

Some people on here need to get real, putting cones and roping it off is plenty.

You can tell which are the kind of parents who let their kids run around bothering people and damaging things and then pull the 'ah shure they're only kids' crap.

cobhguy28

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I wouldn't say its a far leap at all. As an earlier poster said, wet concrete is a magnet for kids and all sorts and this was left in a state where two children had easy access.



The OP even mentioned they were monitoring the driveway after the pour, so clearly recognized the threat but didn't take action to effectively secure the new surface.

Are you saying that 24hr guarding of wet concrete is now required for it, not to be reckless. Remember local authorities repair concrete paths ever day, so are they reckless.

Of course not because dipping your finger or hand in concrete and writing names etc, is by its self is not harmful, as long as you wipe your hands after and any reasonable child old enough to be out by themselves is going to do that. We have all done it as kids , Its the prolonged contact that cause burning

tipptom

allybabe84 wrote: »

Just to clear some things I'm the op and female, I went out to speak to her about driveway, it was pretty much just pointing at it and and she even mentioned I'll get quote for resurfacing, she had all her kids with her, it ended amicably we just parted ways, there was no yelling/screaming, my bf had come out to back me up but from cctv you can see he's just staring at concrete there is no hostility, she called the police on him because he's the male even though I'm the one that called her.
The job involved widening the access to driveway also ie. front wall brought back with pillar moved, no gates. The front two cones came out slightly onto public footpath in the front, there was no mistaking do not come in. Concrete had been poured since early morning, the incident occurred about 3:30pm so it was still drying, not for walking on yet.

I would have thought that concrete would have been gone off fairly well after 4 hours or so unless it was a weak mix.

They cant have gone in to it that much and maybe the contractor can finish in some compound in to the tracks.Not ideal and you will probably always see the different shade in it but should fade out a bit in time.Your lucky it wasn't imprint concrete if that's any consolation.

On that sort of a job with lots of passers by and children I would have put barriers up as I presume its not that wide especially for dogs and cats when it is green who seem to go for it like a magnet.

Think the contractor was a bit negligent with just cones and tape with fresh concrete but I wouldn't go overboard with him on that either or you could be battling on two fronts.

See if the contractor can do that for you which would be a couple of hours work if the tracks are not in to deep and move on I would say because it looks like the parents are not going to take responsibility.

Could be cheaper and less stressful in the long run but I do think the contracter feel short on barriers.

listermint

John Hutton wrote: »

When I'm getting my driveway done I'll be sure to erect four sentry posts complete with snipers, build a giant sandbag wall, deploy tanks and launch a spy satellite to monitor the area.

Some people on here need to get real, putting cones and roping it off is plenty.

best cover it with burlap or some hessian material to assist drying and hide it from view too.

allybabe84

tipptom wrote: »

I would have thought that concrete would have been gone off fairly well after 4 hours or so unless it was a weak mix.

They cant have gone in to it that much and maybe the contractor can finish in some compound in to the tracks.Not ideal and you will probably always see the different shade in it but should fade out a bit in time.Your lucky it wasn't imprint concrete if that's any consolation.

On that sort of a job with lots of passers by and children I would have put barriers up as I presume its not that wide especially for dogs and cats when it is green who seem to go for it like a magnet.

Think the contractor was a bit negligent with just cones and tape with fresh concrete but I wouldn't go overboard with him on that either or you could be battling on two fronts.

See if the contractor can do that for you which would be a couple of hours work if the tracks are not in to deep and move on I would say because it looks like the parents are not going to take responsibility.

Could be cheaper and less stressful in the long run but I do think the contracter feel short on barriers.

Thanks for that, it was on it's way to drying nicely so it wasn't deep enough to sink into but still wet enough to make marks on top. When I discovered it was damaged I tried my best to wipe out the worst of it and got his footprints out but his scooter marks can still be seen. As of now it is only a week old and we are hoping with each day it will try and dry to the same shade. A simple resurfacing to fill in gaps is what we are hoping to do but not sure if it should be done ASAP or wait for another week or two for it to continue hardening.
After speaking to us and agreeing to get quote for resurfacing the woman actually returned with a man to have a quick look at driveway and they walked back home. She had said her husband was away until Sunday to discuss it with him so I'm not sure who the man was, if it was him she lied to police about that too.

BarryD2

Maybe post a photo or two, so people can judge extent of indents. If it's just a few marks, I wouldn't be too bothered. Your eye might be drawn to it now but after a bit of weather and time has gone by, you'll likely not notice it at all. And if you do, well you can tell the story and know it has a bit of character....

goofy141

Hi, I haven't had a chance to read all of the responses, but apologies if this has already been mentioned but the CCTV would be inadmissible in court! CCTV can only be used for the purposes for which it installed under GDPR and the Data protection Act 2018

Seth Brundle

goofy141 wrote: »

Hi, I haven't had a chance to read all of the responses, but apologies if this has already been mentioned but the CCTV would be inadmissible in court! CCTV can only be used for the purposes for which it installed under GDPR and the Data protection Act 2018

...and in this case I would imagine that it was installed to help protect the property/identify anyone who damages the property.