Some interesting news for those who regularly use motorways.

[renegadeimp]

It seems that some independent motorway maintenance people are now pursuing drivers for attending to fix or investigate roadworks, or slight accidents.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19833237

 

The Highways Term Maintenance Association (HTMA), which represents a number of the private Highways Agency contractors told the BBC that the accusations being levelled at the industry were 'misleading.'

 

"HTMA members are dedicated to help and support the everyday motorist, by making sure our roads are safe and disruption is kept to a minimum," a spokesperson said.

 

"Sometimes we have to clean up after incidents, repairing damage caused by motorists, and sometimes the motorist is asked to pay for the damage they have caused."

 

"We believe this is absolutely fair… We do not believe that our members would ever abuse their status."

[Ganymede]

Nothing new there.

 

Why should others pick up the bill for the clean up of an accident caused by negligent driving?

[renegadeimp]

Because the accidents it refers too arent caused by negligent driving. It's the same type of thing as the smoking in travelodge or CRS/RLP. These idiots are simply dishing out speculation letters hoping people will pay up.

[Planta genista]

It's got nothing to do with drivers paying a bill for their negligent driving.

 

It has become a [problem] that it is unregulated.

[Planta genista]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357101-New-money-raking-[problem]-developing

 

It appears I can't use the 's' word - but it's still a 's' problem.

[Surfer01]

So if some one is involved in an accident and is killed, they pursue the estate for the costs? Can't see that being very popular especially when the family is still grieving! After all why do we pay road tax? Isn't it for road maintenance?

[Ganymede]

Because the accidents it refers too arent caused by negligent driving. It's the same type of thing as the smoking in travelodge or CRS/RLP. These idiots are simply dishing out speculation letters hoping people will pay up.

 

 

 

Obvioulsy non fault drivers shouldn't pay but, providing the charges are reasonable and not £3k and you are at fault, I think it is fair enough.

[Ganymede]

So if some one is involved in an accident and is killed, they pursue the estate for the costs? Can't see that being very popular especially when the family is still grieving! After all why do we pay road tax? Isn't it for road maintenance?

 

 

 

We pay it for road maintenance, not for cleaning up/repairing damages casued by poor driving...

[renegadeimp]

Except there is no boundaries to who they are asking Ganymede. These companies are doing the exact same thing as RLP and CRS are currently doing.

[Ganymede]

Except there is no boundaries to who they are asking Ganymede. These companies are doing the exact same thing as RLP and CRS are currently doing.

 

 

 

I don't have an issue with the idea in principle. Liek I said, they should only go after the fault party - not innocent drivers!

[renegadeimp]

I fully agree. But my point, and indeed other peoples, is that they are going after EVERYONE. Even with no legal remit. Thats the main issue here. If they went after those that were found at fault by law, then they can do it. But theyre not.

[Surfer01]

We pay it for road maintenance, not for cleaning up/repairing damages casued by poor driving...

 

Isn't cleaning up and repairs part of road maintenance. What if someone caused you to have an accident and drove off because their vehicle was not damaged? What if the new tyre fitted earlier in the day blew and caused you to have an accident?

[Ganymede]

Isn't cleaning up and repairs part of road maintenance.

 

No.

 

 

 

What if someone caused you to have an accident and drove off because their vehicle was not damaged?

 

That would not be my fault so would not expect any attempted recovery.

 

 

 

What if the new tyre fitted earlier in the day blew and caused you to have an accident?

 

See above.

[kurvaface]

I thought I pay road tax to keep the roads in order.

[Ganymede]

You do for day to day maintenance. Not for damage caused by negligent driving.

[kurvaface]

You do for day to day maintenance. Not for damage caused by negligent driving.

 

Let's hope your doctor doesn't sart treating you the same way then.

[Surfer01]

No.

 

 

 

 

 

That would not be my fault so would not expect any attempted recovery.

 

 

 

 

 

See above.

I think that you are totally incorrect as where does onus of proof lie?

[Planta genista]

Originally Posted by Surfer01

What if someone caused you to have an accident and drove off because their vehicle was not damaged?

 

 

 

That would not be my fault so would not expect any attempted recovery.

 

Gannymede - you are not reading anything properly.

 

In the above scenario, you would be pursued by these people as yours would be the details they could obtain, just as in the article, the woman who simply skidded on oil spilt by another vehicle was pursued.

 

Then - the whole point of this article and the MoneyBox programme was not the principle of someone causing damage having to pay for it.

 

It is the fact that people are being pursued for non-existent costs that either cannot be justified or which are downright bogus in the first place.

 

If you read that article you will see that there is a growing problem for those companies who are seeing the funding being cut and this is a S-C-A-M where they are charging obscene sums of money which they cannot justify, let alone prove that there was any kind of damage that required repair in the first place.

[Ganymede]

Let's hope your doctor doesn't sart treating you the same way then.

 

 

Bit of a difference there...

[Ganymede]

Gannymede - you are not reading anything properly.

 

In the above scenario, you would be pursued by these people as yours would be the details they could obtain, just as in the article, the woman who simply skidded on oil spilt by another vehicle was pursued.

 

Then - the whole point of this article and the MoneyBox programme was not the principle of someone causing damage having to pay for it.

 

It is the fact that people are being pursued for non-existent costs that either cannot be justified or which are downright bogus in the first place.

 

If you read that article you will see that there is a growing problem for those companies who are seeing the funding being cut and this is a S-C-A-M where they are charging obscene sums of money which they cannot justify, let alone prove that there was any kind of damage that required repair in the first place.

 

 

I have agreed several times that the bogus claims against not fault parties should be stopped. I don't think I have ever said anything different and agree they are very wrong.

 

However, I stand by the principle that a fault party can't really complain too much if they are charged fair and reasonable costs.

[renegadeimp]

I'm with you on that gany. It's just unfortunate that the companies that are performing this sc@m dont agree with you. At all. They are issuing letters to anyone and everyone involved for charges that are unfair or cannot b e justified, which is where the [problem] comes in.

[Sillywizard]

Interesting points on either side of this argument but I'd put myself firmly into the 'shouldn't be chargeable' camp. If my negligence causes damage, and a court tells me that I am required to make a contribution, I'll mumble and grumble but I'll pay up because that's what courts are for. The extent to which I am liable will be a matter for the police, CPS and court to decide and will be reflected in points, fines, damages and maybe even prison - arbitrary costs determined by profit making companies, whether the amounts could be judged as fair and reasonable or not, aren't what I signed up for.

 

I reject the proposition that cleaning up after accidents isn't included within road maintenance. The beneficiary of this revenue is not the taxpayer or reduced bills to the council, it's increased profit for whichever company has taken the contract on for a particular section of road; doubtless a large company which has undercut smaller local companies and which is hoping to increase its margins by the imposition of it's 'fair and reasonable' costs.

 

I so badly wanted to put 'cui bono' into the above sentence but it didn't fit anywhere