Damage from raised surface in car park

[tyuio008]

I had the misfortune of parking my car in Woking's "Shoppers" multi-story car park whilst doing Christmas shopping. As I pulled forward into a parking bay, I heard a horrible sound and got out to see that there was an elevated, unmarked concrete step forming part of the actual parking bay, invisible from the driver's point of view, that had damaged the front underside of my car. It was impossible to position the car within the parking bay without driving over this unmarked step. I contacted my insurer, NFU Mutual, who said that Woking Council would in all likelihood dispute their liability for damage but it beggars belief that whoever designed the car park built deliberately uneven surfaces into parking bays whose only purpose seems to be to cause damage to the users vehicles.

 

This damage has left my car unroadworthy (as the damaged area under the bumper can make contact with the road when driving as I discovered when travelling home) and no courtesey car is available at my insurers specified repair centres for at least five days (leaving me carless for half a week plus a full weekend). I'd like to add a hire car to my claim so that I can at least take my newborn daughter to meet family for the first time this weekend as had been arranged, but my insurer is saying they can't add a hire car to my claim.

 

Is there any advice you can offer?

[Mossycat]

Let me get this straight, you the driver of a car (ie responsible to ensure that the vehicle is driven in a safe manner) drove into a fixed object because you failed to notice it was there and you hold anyone else but you responsible?

 

I think your insurers are quite correct, the Council will deny liability.

 

Would you be making the same posting if instead of it been a concrete step it had been a young child that was crawling in that space, I know it's unlikely but suppose the owner of another car parked next to that space had a young child who had crawled unnoticed into that area, would you now be wanting to claim from the parents for any damage caused to your car?????

 

You mention that you would like to add a hire car to your claim, well your claim would be against the person responsible for causing the damage, which is the driver of the car at the time of the accident.

 

Best advice I can offer is do not drive a car unless you are certain that there is nothing in your way that you might drive into.

 

Mossy

Edited December 15, 2008 by Mossycat

[flyingdoc]

Harsh mossycat and although I have some agreement with what you are saying, I too have noticed that there are some concrete "steps" built into multistoreys. I think the idea is that you dont drive too far forward and that your wheel hits the Kerb before the nose of your car hits the wall.

These are made out of the same material as the floor and so can be invisible esp in poor light which multistoreys may well be.

Having said all that I have no doubt that there will be an exclusion notice in the carpark - somthing to the effect of - if you choose to park here, then even if we come and smash your car to bits with hammers, we are not liable.

Any judge is likely to take that, along with mossys view that in hitting a stationary object with your car you must accept some liability, and dismiss your claim.

In my view they should paint these things bright yellow -but who am I

[tyuio008]

Flyingdoc - Prior to this experience I would have assumed that there is a duty on part of the car park owners to ensure that their parking bays are safe to use in the same way that they shouldn't be allowed to build sticking-up nails into a parking bay.

 

Mossycat - I did not hit an "object", I am talking about a variance in the height of the road surface and as Flyingdoc suggests, it isn't possible to see this discrepancy in a dark car park. The party responsible for causing the damage is the council who owns an unsafe car park. I suppose you think that councils aren't liable for pothole, speed-hump or other deliberate hazard damage either? The best advice I can give to you is unless you have anything useful to contribute keep your thoughts to yourself.

[Mossycat]

I suppose you think that councils aren't liable for pothole, speed-hump or other deliberate hazard damage either? The best advice I can give to you is unless you have anything useful to contribute keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

 

You asked for advice, I gave you advice based on my years as a motor claims handler. For your information there is a world of difference between failing to maintain a road (ie potholes) and something that has always been there and in your own words 'formed part of the actual parking'.

Your original post stated "unmarked concrete step forming part of the actual parking " if that is correct then my advice was correct.

 

I would also remind you that this is a public forum, if you ask for advice do not berate people who give you it just because you don't like it.

 

The simple fact is that you failed to watch where you were going, you were negligent because of that, you hit something that was there for all to see and had always been there, you are therefore the author of your own misfortune and you are the only person who will pay for the repairs to your car.

 

Mossy

[upto the eyeballs]

This type of "car stop" are very popular in the U.S.A, generally used by yanks they intentionally hit these knowing they are parked as far as they can go.

 

However they are always clearly marked either white or yellow in colour but in any event a different colour to the road surface.

 

Questions:

 

1) Was there a colour difference between raised section & surface

2) Was there any warning signs of raised surface "stops"

3) Inspect the car park and look for evidence of other accidents i.e

chipped / broken concrete.

 

If they are not clearly identifiable then I would take pictures for evidence and possibly check with car park staff to see if others have had the same misfortune, then make a claim against the owners.

 

The car park should be fit for purpose, bays clearly marked etc

[Mossycat]

Mossycat - The best advice I can give to you is unless you have anything useful to contribute keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

Actually I've had a rethink on this, it is after all Christmas, and not wishing to give advice that somebody didn't want to hear I'll try again.

 

Obviously the car-park is at fault, and in particular the "unmarked concrete step forming part of the actual parking ", this naughty concrete step must therefore pay for everything. Now as we all know concrete steps shouldn't just lie there in plain sight waiting to cause damage so whoever designed that is guilty beyond doubt.

 

Therefore you need to write a letter to the owners of said car-park stating exactly what this step did to your car when you drove over it. Tell them you want the cost of the repairs back, you want to claim for a hire-car, you want to claim for out of pocket expenses, you want to claim for general inconvenience, don't forget to claim for all the time you have spent trying to think who you could blame and for the time you spent posting to this forum, also include expenses incurred.

 

Obviously they will send you a cheque by return post and because it's so close to Christmas they may even add on enough money for you to get an eye-test to avoid future instances where you hit something you didn't see thus saving owners of other unmarked steps from future claims.

 

Mossy

'Probably the best advice in the world'

[z0nk]

You asked for advice, I gave you advice based on my years as a motor claims handler. For your information there is a world of difference between failing to maintain a road (ie potholes) and something that has always been there and in your own words 'formed part of the actual parking'.

Your original post stated "unmarked concrete step forming part of the actual parking " if that is correct then my advice was correct.

 

I would also remind you that this is a public forum, if you ask for advice do not berate people who give you it just because you don't like it.

 

The simple fact is that you failed to watch where you were going, you were negligent because of that, you hit something that was there for all to see and had always been there, you are therefore the author of your own misfortune and you are the only person who will pay for the repairs to your car.

 

Damn. I wouldnt want mossy handling my motor claim.

Edited December 17, 2008 by z0nk

[Mossycat]

Damn. I wouldnt want mossy handling my motor claim.

 

Would you rather we pay out for every claim and then put premiums up to cover the cost?

 

If you read my other posts you will find that where I can, I advise people how to claim and what they can claim for and in some cases how to get insurers to up valuations, however, I only do this where there is a chance they will succeed.

 

In this particular case the OP was solely responsible for not watching what they were doing and consequently damaged their car, the owners of the car park (and their insurers) will quite rightly deny liability

 

Mossy

[tyuio008]

upto the eyeballs - Thanks for your advice. I managed to get hold of a guy at the council parking section who has dealt with a number of this type of incidents before. Apparently this is a big problem for them and they are in the process of getting warning signs put up and painting the different floor level in black and yellow stripes where the surface of the floor changes (as at present they are indeed the same colour). They have agreed they are liable for the damage and my insurance company confirmed it on Friday. Also, I was able to remove the front undertray without too much trouble despite the joints being sheared, so was able to make my car roadworthy after all and so didn't need a hire car. All worked out well! Thanks to you and flyingdoc for your help.

 

Mossycat - In your previous response you made a point of addressing only one of the examples I gave, pot hole damage, being a different matter (which it isn't) but you neglected to respond to the actual point. Then you undermined youself even further by writing a sarcastic post. I'm with z0nk, I wouldn't a loser who has been wrong about just about everything handling my claim either.

[upto the eyeballs]

Excellent news tyuio, perhaps a click on my scales is in order?

 

Oh and Mossycat, you got shares in Insurance companies or something???

never mind on this occasion your insurance won't be going up but your damm council tax will :D:D:D

[LemonTwist]

Excellent news tyuio, perhaps a click on my scales is in order?

 

Oh and Mossycat, you got shares in Insurance companies or something???

never mind on this occasion your insurance won't be going up but your damm council tax will :D:D:D

 

Wouldn't the money come from the council's insurer though? I'm really surprised the council admitted liability.

[Mossycat]

Mossycat - Then you undermined youself even further by writing a sarcastic post. I'm with z0nk, I wouldn't a loser who has been wrong about just about everything handling my claim either.

 

You asked for advice, when I gave you advice you berated it because it wasn't what you wanted to hear so I posted advice that you obviously wanted to hear, now you berate that by suggesting I was sarcastic.

 

What exactly would please you then????

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Oh and Mossycat, you got shares in Insurance companies or something???

never mind on this occasion your insurance won't be going up but your damm council tax will :D:D:D

 

No I don't have any shares in insurance, I just have a lot of years experience as a claims handler and post advice which in my experience is correct.

 

I am extremely surprised that the Council (or their insurers) are admitting liability in this instance, but IF and I say IF that is the case then that's up to them.

 

Why is it when I post advice that helps people that's OK, but the minute I dare to suggest something other than what the OP wants to hear people accuse me of having a vested interest or not knowing what I am talking about.

 

I always thought this was a public forum and when someone asked for advice they genuinely wanted advice as opposed to 'going on the offensive' against authors of replies that they didn't want to hear.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

I'm really surprised the council admitted liability.

 

I am too.

 

I am also surprised that in the space of 10 days the Council have admitted liability, confirmed it to the OP's insurers and are discussing the matter with someone other than the claims handlers acting on behalf of the OP.

 

Not like any insurance practice I have ever heard of, but then again the OP is hardly likely to come back and post anything other than that.

 

I'll check out Wokings official position on this incident because if that is the case and they are accepting liability I can use this in a couple of cases I'm currently dealing with.

 

Mossy

[upto the eyeballs]

Hey Mossy,

 

I was not having a go, just advising on my previous experience.

 

Have a good xmas & new year:)