christhelawyer : HiWelcome to JustAnswer. My first response will follow shortly. Please feel free to follow up if anything is not clear
christhelawyer : The police may be wrong about the damage if this was deliberate damage, because there is an often used charge of causing wilful damage under the Summary Offences Act. The test is whether he intended to cause the damage or was just careless.
christhelawyer : in either case you can sue him for the cost of repairs, as the test in a civil case is on the balance of probabilities, he caused the damage. If that was the case then he must pay. You can bring a claim in the Disputes Tribunal to get an order he pay the damage which may be the way to proceed if he does not agree to settle this.
Further to my question.
On check I got the Group manager to sign this :
Thank you for being responsible for Applying Egmont Eco Leisure Regulations as a tranquil and pleasant place to stay. You are required to restrict noise after 10.00 p.m. in consideration for other guests and adjoining neighbours. The group manager will be personally responsible for any damage resulting from their group during their stay and all costs will be charged to credit card details as supplied or an invoice sent to their address and is payable within 7 days.
Once I contacted them about the damage he consequently cancelled his credit card so I couldn’t withdraw the funds.
His argument is that the quote is excessive. They have admitted to the two lots of damage as we can prove this. No question with witness’s. They also admitted this in front of a police officer. The third lot of damage one Perspex panel we have written off.
They are travelling back to Australia today where they reside.
I look forward to your response.
The damage was intentional as this was a ball kicked againest a large wall of perspex tens of times. The police have identified this as the cause and his exact words were " gross stupidily and continued repeated offending " I can't understand why they don't charge them with wilful damage. Do I go back to the police ?
christhelawyer : I think you should. That is definitely wilful damage. Section 11 of the Summary Offences Act says
christhelawyer : (1)Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who intentionally—(a)damages any property; or(b)sets on fire any tree or other vegetation.(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a person does an act intentionally if he does it intentionally or recklessly, and without lawful justification or excuse or claim of right.
christhelawyer : The wording in subsection 2 makes it clear. They admit the damage but just deny the cost. So the police are avoiding the issue possibly because they know the group leader is leaving. If this was a group of local kids I bet they would pursue them. Perhaps when you ask again and they refuse, suggest that the Independent Police Conduct Authority may be the next step for you.
Excellent thank you so much
christhelawyer : thanks
The police have come and gone. They said they will not charge them. The team of rugby players are under 15 years old. The manager had said he will pay the costs of damage but only after getting his own quotes. The police decided it was a civil matter even after the group and manager admitted and said they were responsible for the damge. So back to Australia they go with myself left with no option but to wait to see if they are as good as there word. Very frustrating .
christhelawyer : It is possible to charge them in the Youth Court, but not as easy as adults. That may be why they declined to act.