Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Funding concerns are expected to see Saudi Arabia reduce its giant building schemes.View the full article
    • Why the former Fujitsu engineer is such a key figure in the Post Office scandal.View the full article
    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • The EU and China still disagree about the import taxes, but have agreed to discuss them further.View the full article
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Pot Hole Damage Council offer should I accept


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4013 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Hit a water covered pot hole on New years eve, it was in a country lane I was not familiar with, pitch black and raining heavily. Tyre blew, wheel dented, and upon trying to change it in the pitch darkness as nobody would stop to help me (I am woman by the way), couple of men stopped only to ask if i had a phone assuming I had break down cover, I didn't and the last time I changed a tyre was 20 years ago! As a result, put the jack slightly wrong place, because couldn't see the markers, cill crumpled and paint chipped. I have a mobility problems and on benefits, so couldn't afford to have it cill fixed or tracking which I was advised will be out. It took weeks before I could afford £96 odd for tyre, but did get fair estimate for damage caused to cill. I believe if the pothole wasn't there my car would not have been damaged, so sent a comprehensive statement and everything necessary for claim including pictures from immediately afterwards and in the day time too as well and the report I made of its existence (as well as the other craters which got filled in but mine didn't even a month later).

 

The total damage was £587, they have come back with £106, my instinct is to say I don't accept that, but I thought I would check here first to see if anyone has pursued further and how or what they did.

 

Would appreciate any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If its their first offer i wud reject it as they will just be testing the water. You should be claiming foe the total cost if repair plus compensation.

Please add to my reputation....

SUCCESS - Capital One PPI, Three Mobile charges, Orange Mobile charges, MBNA PPI

Wonga, Lowell, MMF 2 accounts, Provident x 3 Accounts, (ALL Unable to provide CCA)

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, they are not responsable for damage to car during replacement of the wheel, however they would have had to pay for a garage call out to replace wheel if you had gone that route.

So if their offer covers the damaged tyre and wheel and subsequent refitting, tracking then OK, if not ask for costs that covers these items.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, they are not responsable for damage to car during replacement of the wheel, however they would have had to pay for a garage call out to replace wheel if you had gone that route.

So if their offer covers the damaged tyre and wheel and subsequent refitting, tracking then OK, if not ask for costs that covers these items.

By the same token, if it had not been for the pothole there would have been no need to change the tyre and the sill would not have been damaged. The council need to reimburse 100%!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your advice, my thought pattern was exactly what Surfer01 wrote. IMO, by offering initially, they ARE accepting liability, however, like all insurance companies, they see if the person will back down.

 

It's the terminology they used that got me.

 

With refer to your claim for damages.

In order that matters may be settled, Ringway are prepared to make a payment to you for the sum of £109.80. This is only for the damaged wheel/Tyre only. This payment would be on a goodwill basis and without any admission of liability.

 

If you agree to the matter being settled in this way I should be pleased if you would sign the enclosed discharge and have it witnessed and returned to this office when a cheque for the amount will be issued to you.

 

Now just have to compose the rejection response. :-)

 

Be glad of any tips or matters I should raise within in it, like what lelu19uk raised such as "compensation" as I hadn't even thought of that. I only want to be reimbursed for the cost of fixing the car back to before hitting the pothole, but as the time goes on the damage may increase, such as the tracking not being done, may cause additional wear on the tyres.

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree some amount for your inconvenience and time to sort out, say three to four hours at £25/30 hr. plus get a qoute for tracking etc and add that.

But as said before do not believe they are responsable for body damage, that was your choice rather than getting garage to sort ( which you could of claimed for as well ).

good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as said before do not believe they are responsable for body damage, that was your choice rather than getting garage to sort

 

 

 

I agree with you. I think they OP will be very luck to get the cost of the body work back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the further responses, however I still believe if I had not hit that pothole I wouldn't have damaged my car, it was pitch dark, wet and muddy and long way from any houses to see if some nice gentlemen would help.

 

Furthermore, I didn't have the money to replace the spare tyre let alone call a garage, but even if I did how much would that cost, or even if they would on New Years eve evening, it would be a fortune.

 

As for compensation, yes I could add that kind and hope my time be reimbursed, but I am just asking for exactly what it will cost to get my car which is only 3 years old back to the condition it was in before I hit the pothole.

Edited by leilani
missed out a few words
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had you got a garage out to change the wheel and they had caused the body damage, who would you have expected to pay for it?

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had you got a garage out to change the wheel and they had caused the body damage, who would you have expected to pay for it?

The point is that if it had not been for the pot hole causing the incident, there would not have been any damage to the wheel or bodywork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that if it had not been for the pot hole causing the incident, there would not have been any damage to the wheel or bodywork.

 

 

It's not reasonable to expert the council to pay for the damage that the OP caused herself.

 

I am surprised that the council has offered anything and is not just relying on a section 58 defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not reasonable to expert the council to pay for the damage that the OP caused herself.

 

I am surprised that the council has offered anything and is not just relying on a section 58 defence.

 

Is it reasonable to expect damage to your car or be inconvenienced for months, when you pay road tax? (the irony, is I paid the road tax online just 30mins before it happened) Not to mention the anxiety once you have fixed the tyre, that every hole in the road is going to do the same again.

 

Or better still nobody should claim against pothole damage, after all you take liability knowing, some where at some point, there is a pothole and you make that decision knowing this, so it should in theory void any claims.

 

Is it reasonable that a pothole has to be reported by the public before it is fixed? Do you know the procedure and how long winded it is? Very off putting indeed!

 

Do you personally, or anybody who has answered here reported potholes, even if you don't hit one? I can honestly say, I didn't even know I could before it happened. I assumed that the roads were inspected and maintained, and that is what we paid road tax for.

 

The fact the council has offered me something counts to their admission, you can cover it up with legal jargon of good will and hope the person is stupid enough to take it, and make out that it was just one of those things because there is no way that road even though a country lane, isn't busy enough to warrant fixing, or that nobody else had hit one of the craters of which I have plenty of photos of.

 

As it stands, my garage was not open on New years Eve, they also said it was unlikely any garage would have been open until the 2nd. If I had managed to find one they would have charged hundreds. The only thing I could have done was call someone like RAC or AA and sign up there and then, did I think of that? No, I was just concerned that I needed to be away from that road and the dangers it presented. Plus I would have had to have at least £50 to do so, which I didn't. Would I have got that back? I doubt it.

 

So I ask, has anyone on this thread actually had pothole damage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The roads are in a terrible state, and councils/HA are aware of it, it just comes down to money to do the repairs and as there other things that take priority over this, this is the result.

And the councils/ha accept it and do pay for damage as caused when claims are submitted!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government have an average 1.5. million to councils I have been told by an MP, but like some councils have taken off 1.0million for other expences! if a high court involved here, then a Barraster of any worth would submit that any incident would not of happened if the road was in a good state of repair. = and the outcome ??? councils will do anything to avoid a judgment no doubt.

 

 

like road sweepers a few years ago, the main road here was swept to every bodies amazment, oh1 The Queen of the Nederlands was due to pass by here in the next 2 hours. so nothing has changed.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it reasonable to expect damage to your car or be inconvenienced for months, when you pay road tax? (the irony, is I paid the road tax online just 30mins before it happened) Not to mention the anxiety once you have fixed the tyre, that every hole in the road is going to do the same again.

 

Or better still nobody should claim against pothole damage, after all you take liability knowing, some where at some point, there is a pothole and you make that decision knowing this, so it should in theory void any claims.

 

Is it reasonable that a pothole has to be reported by the public before it is fixed? Do you know the procedure and how long winded it is? Very off putting indeed!

 

Do you personally, or anybody who has answered here reported potholes, even if you don't hit one? I can honestly say, I didn't even know I could before it happened. I assumed that the roads were inspected and maintained, and that is what we paid road tax for.

 

The fact the council has offered me something counts to their admission, you can cover it up with legal jargon of good will and hope the person is stupid enough to take it, and make out that it was just one of those things because there is no way that road even though a country lane, isn't busy enough to warrant fixing, or that nobody else had hit one of the craters of which I have plenty of photos of.

 

 

 

No, it is not an admission of liability.

 

Is it unreasonable to expect a person to be able to change a tyre properly? I would say that the damage is too remote.

 

The Council only have a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to have a "reasonable" system of inspection. If you really want to push this ask for records of their inspections of the last 18 months for the road in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if a high court involved here, then a Barraster of any worth would submit that any incident would not of happened if the road was in a good state of repair. = and the outcome ??? councils will do anything to avoid a judgment no doubt.

 

 

See my post above, the Council only have a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to have a "reasonable" system of inspection.

 

Courts hate these types of claims and often side with the Council in relation to their Section 58 defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It only makes sense to except the cost of total damage surely? Otherwise it looks as if your taking some responsibility for the accident yourself, which wasn't your fault. You pay council tax,road tax, your entitled to a decent standard of road to drive on, plus it might pull there fingers out a bit more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It only makes sense to except the cost of total damage surely? Otherwise it looks as if your taking some responsibility for the accident yourself, which wasn't your fault. You pay council tax,road tax, your entitled to a decent standard of road to drive on, plus it might pull there fingers out a bit more.

 

 

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't be entitled to a decent standard of roads but equally why should we pay for the damage to the OP's car that she caused herself. Remember it is our taxes paying for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't be entitled to a decent standard of roads but equally why should we pay for the damage to the OP's car that she caused herself. Remember it is our taxes paying for it.

 

Why are you ignoring the fact that the damage would not have happened if the car had not hit the pot hole? The OP should pursue it all the way and be compensated for all damage as a result of the pot hole. If more people did this maybe they would start improving the roads as after all, you pay road tax, VAT or fuel, VAT on any car servicing etc. Time to get a return for your investment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to work for the highways department for my local council about 7 years ago and trust me they waste there money on others things I'd rather not pay for. For example, the signage department had 40K of their budget left at the end of the year, so they blew it on loads of things that didnt need doing just so there budget would be kept the same the following year. Folking out for someones damage costs that they caused (granted it was a bit of chain reaction) would only skim the surface.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Well there's hope for all who hit a pothole and claim for damages. :roll:

 

After a series of letters back and forth to the claims manager, who wouldn't budge on how much they were going to offer me...which was for the tyre and wheel only. I contacted my local councillor who was very supportive and my MP who wrote to the Chief Executive backing up my claim that If I hadn't hit the pothole I wouldn't have damaged my car.

 

Today, I got a letter offering me the full amount I claimed for! Victory! :whoo:Of course I have to now sign that they are not liable, but hey...that's fair.

 

So, don't give up hope! If you have a legitimate claim with as much evidence as possible, reported, receipts, photographs there and then and after, then continue to put the pressure on by contacting your MP if you are being fobbed off!

 

Oh and one more thing...call AA or RAC before changing the tyre, that way, you can learn by my mistake. If you don't have AA ring them and set up a policy there and then...if you can afford to do so that is! Best of luck!:humble:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...