This site uses cookies.

Schedules, Counter Schedules and the Gadget Generation - Simon Readhead QC, 1 Chancery Lane

25/11/14. No self-respecting Schedule of Loss is now complete without a hefty claim for “Assistive Technology” items. The response in most Counter Schedules is that the Claimant is likely to have possessed all or some of the items being claimed in any event. The fact is that UK parents now spend a combined £2.25 billion a yearorjust under £300 per year per householdon technology for their children.

This information comes from research on behalf of E.ON UK, one of the UK’s large energy providers.

http://pressreleases.eon-uk.com/blogs/eonukpressreleases/archive/2014/07/25/2376.aspx

We are truly the “gadget generation” in that today’s children possess an average of 4 gadgets each.

Staggeringly, parents with children aged under 5 spend even more. On average a “techie tot” is given gadgets costing £395 per year. Not surprisingly, it is teenagers aged 15-17 who are the most “plugged-in” typically owning 7 devices each.

The trend continues into adulthood. From age 18, parents of males spend over £717 a year on gadgets for their sons. Females aged 18 and over have just under £1,000 worth of gadgets bought for them by their parents per year.

It will come as no surprise to readers not in these age groups to learn that most (56%) of parents acknowledge using their children's “technology hand-me-downs”. 32% of parents also confessed to not being as “tech-savvy” as their children. Most worryingly of all, 14% of parents admitted that they could even match their “techie tots” when it comes to knowing their way around the latest gadgets.

Perhaps the Counters Schedulers have a point?

Simon Readhead QC
1 Chancery Lane

Image ©iStockphoto.com/marvinh

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.