Car damaged on public road.

[Its WAR]

I drove over a stump of a metal post concreted into the verge of the road as I was driving onto a gravel layby on a country road near Farnham, Dorset .

 

The post was approx 6 inches high and 3 inches wide. It looked as though it should have had a plastic warning post attached to it matching the one at the other end of the layby. I didn't notice driving over it, I guess it cleared the front bumber and missed the wheel. However, as I reversed off and back into the road (I was towing a trailer at the time), the stump caught the inside edge of my front bumber and tore it off. Might I have a claim against the council?

 

I would rather that than make an insurance claim, although I guess I could make the insurance claim and look to the council for the excess and possibly uninsured losses if my premium or no claims is affected. A local resident noticed and said he had seen it happen before and they had tried to get the stump removed for years. How should I proceed?

[honeybee13]

Hi. Do you have any photos of where this happened?

 

HB

[Its WAR]

Scan0009.pdfHope this scan of the images works.

[FTMDave]

Open.

[Its WAR]

Dorset Council have refused all liability.

 

They say the stump was not on the highway and their duty is limited to ensure regular inspections of the highways and if nothing is wrong, they have discharged their duty. 

 

Furthermore, the lay by is not an official lay by but more of an area where people, over time, have created  the pull in. 

 

Seems strange that the area looks like a tarmac surface and they don't think it is part of the highway.

 

It is obvious that the stump was once part of a road sign (probably the oncoming vehicles sign) which was cut off at ground level and moved further back from the road side.

 

The earth around the stump has subsequently been eroded by weather and traffic bumping up the grass verge and the stump fully exposed. If the council did regular highway inspections, they obviously failed to see the stump just by driving past slowly and the inspections could not have been that good.

 

I have made a claim on my insurance policy and the matter has been settled with them costing £2500 plus vat. But because they have said the accident was my fault as no other vehicle was involved, I have lost 6 years of no claims bonus.

 

My premium this year was increased by £97 because of that, and also, my wife's premium for her car was increased to add me as a named driver by £50. It seems that I will have to suffer these higher premiums for six years. I have also lost £250 excess.

 

I hold the council entirely to blame and would have preferred to not have my insurers involved, but I reckoned that I had a duty to reduce the claim to the council, by claiming first under my policy.

 

Interestingly, having written to the council to make my original complaint, they immediately employed a team of workers to remove the stump.

 

So, I am now preparing to issue a summons for my uninsured losses.

 

Does anybody have any idea how I calculate the loss of my no claims discount for the next 6 years?

 

It seems too easy that it might be just calling it £150 a year, because of course, next year it will only be five years lost and reducing to only one year in year six.

 

Furthermore, I haven't actually suffered those other premium increases yet.

 

Also, what principles of the law do I base my claim on and how do I word it? 

[dx100uk]

would be interesting to see if its on google earth where you can go back in time, (or by another method) when and what the sign was, tehn imho you'd have a much stronger and p'haps foolproof claim.

 

i'e they moved it or it got knocked down , but eitherway it was the councils responsibility to remove it properly in the 1st place as they put it there!!

 

@unclebulgaria67 is your ins master.

 

dx

 

[Its WAR]

That is a great point. I will look up google earth, quite often the images are a few years out of date.

 

 

[dx100uk]

you can also go back a few years too.

i can get images of my gaff right back to 2015

[unclebulgaria67]

With a Court claim for consequential loss, you can only base it on what you currently know, so you cannot include future perceived losses. Reason is that each year you would shop around and obtain the best premium for the cover required.

 

With loss of no claims or any premium loading due to a claim, you don't suffer a loss for a fixed percentage amount per year and Insurance companies have their own individual ways of pricing their policies. So it is not possible to say because of this accident damage on x date that you would incur x percentage loss or approx x amount of annual loss.

 

Way you would be best to approach this is to make a claim for the loss you can quantify now. Then outside of the Court claim process, tell the Council that you will be submitting a new claim each year for the loss they have made you suffer. And ask Council to make you an offer to reflect the current loss and also future approximate losses, so they don't face having to deal with a new Court claim each year for the next say 4 years.

[Its WAR]

Thanks UB, I thought that was the case. Because I haven't actually suffered all the loss yet, and can't really quantify it in advance. It will still be hard to quantify it annually. I wondered whether the solution might be to try to negotiate and issue the summons in six years time. But your solution seems much better. One more letter before action, to sue for the losses already incurred. They will refuse. I get a hearing. If I win, they will then be under pressure to negotiate the rest or face an annual summons.

 

I checked Google Earth for earlier images. Just before my battery ran out. The image latest image they have is one year earlier. Interestingly, since that image two extra bollards have been installed at the far end of the pull in. The pull in has also got a fair bit bigger due to traffic use and erosion. But most importantly, I can't see the stump in the older image, which suggests the ground around it had not yet eroded away........therefore the council perhaps have an excuse for failing to spot it as a potential hazard.