council liability ?

Anonymous · April 2, 2007, 18:47

Quote from: "Wabbitkilla""Shawshank Redemption" comes to mind - write a letter every week.

Indeed, but how does digging a tunnel behind a poster of Rachel Welch help? s:D

s:D s:D

s:D

Firepower, re your photo, if the road hasn't been resurfaced yet, I recommend a picture with someone holding a ruler to show the height of the hole, or if unable to focus on a ruler, just someone's hand....preferably still attached....to show some sort of size reference. This would help in case the height was disputed.

I wrote a report for evidence in county court once, about the same sort of thing, in this case the ramp was just before the manhole so that vehicles were down on their suspension when they hit and took a chunk off their sumps. Anything that contributes is worthy of note, but backed up by irrefutable evidence is what builds a case.

RacingSnake · April 2, 2007, 21:59

Just an innocent enquiry FP, but is your '2 lowered? Not that this should have any impact on a claim but if it is - was the low ride height a deciding factor on impact?

Anonymous · April 2, 2007, 22:02

Phil!

have you actually had it repaired yet?

firepower · April 3, 2007, 09:00

i run over the man hole cover on a saturday night and took a photo on sunday morning without a ruler so i went back early on the monday morning with a ruler but it was to late the road was already resurfaced s:(

s:(

i hav'nt had the car repaired yet as i am waiting to hear from the council and the car runs ok without the brace although it is suffering with scuttle shake and does'nt feel as sharp at the moment s:(

s:(

yes the car is lowered but the clearance is still six and a half inches which should be plenty on a well maintained road

firepower · April 19, 2007, 15:54

just a quick update , so far i have had no contact from the council at all each time i ring them i am told to ring another department and speak to a different person or that the person who is dealing with the matter is away s:evil: :evil: s:evil: now i am told that the claim has been passed to the contractor and they should have contacted me , its been six weeks now and all the council seems to have done is sit on its arse regarding my claim s:(

s:( each time i ring them i have to explain the circumstances of my claim over and over again they are giving me the run around the bas****s and i am feeling a little despondent that i dont seem to be getting anywhere

Wabbitkilla · April 19, 2007, 16:21

Contact you local MP - that usually bumps them s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

roger · April 19, 2007, 16:22

Telephone calls (and emails) are too easy to get you annoyed and them doing nothing. OK, it shouldn't happen but it's a fact of life - especially if they are not selling you something.

I suggest you abandon the phone if it doesn't provide the information you want in a timely fashion. Start writing letters and keep a file going. As I said use Recorded Delivery and note on your file when the letters were received and by whom (details on the RM website).

First task is to find out from Council

1. That they are denying liability
2. Who they are passing the claim onto (ie the Contractor).

Once you have that information you tackle the Contractor. Get confirmation that they are accepting liability (without prejudice) and the name and details of their insurance company, assuming they are using one.

Then, and only then, will you be able to start talking about liability.

And I hate to repeat myself, but it will NOT happen quickly.

I am assuming you are not using your insurance company and trying to do it all yourself. Regrettably that is likely to prolong matters as well s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

firepower · April 19, 2007, 18:36

thanks for the support all s:)

s:) its nice to know its there and thanks for the advice i will send a letter requesting the details of the contractor and ask who if anyone is accepting liability for my claim and if i dont get any joy from them i shall contact my mp

Anonymous · April 19, 2007, 19:50

It might be obvious but always get the name of who you speak to then ask for them the next time you ring. Ask for a direct dial number. Be strong you deserve to get full recompense.

Anonymous · April 21, 2007, 18:20

Don't give up - stick it to the man!

These local government feck wits get away with wasting so much of our time and money they need to be held accountable! s:evil: :evil: s:evil:

firepower · April 27, 2007, 20:13

sorry

firepower · April 27, 2007, 20:22

this is a photo of the raised man hole cover that i ran over last month it is perhaps difficult to get a true idea of the real hight of it from this photo but as you can see there are no warnings about it anywhere and it should give you an idea of why i feel the council or contractor is liable for the damage to my car

Anonymous · April 27, 2007, 22:22

Which direction were you travelling - from behind or toward the camera?

ChrisGB · April 27, 2007, 22:55

Quote from: "firepower"

this is a photo of the raised man hole cover that i ran over last month it is perhaps difficult to get a true idea of the real hight of it from this photo but as you can see there are no warnings about it anywhere and it should give you an idea of why i feel the council or contractor is liable for the damage to my car

You want to get some decent photos of the raised area with a ruler for scale reference. Hope the claim goes well.

Chris

firepower · April 28, 2007, 14:01

i had turned left out of the side road that you can see on the right hand side in the center of this photo just beyond the black and white bollards .
as i entered the road i turned in to a traffic calming chicane with this raised man hole right in the middle of the exit to the chicane with no way around it this was at ten past eleven on a saturday evening so could'nt see the road condition to well and there were no warnings of this raised man hole anywhere it was almost like a trap for my car and it got me s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

Anonymous · April 28, 2007, 15:06

At the very least there should be a ramp sign and a loose chippings one IMHO.

Anonymous · April 28, 2007, 20:56

OK, well you can see from the photo how tight the turn is and how close to the manhole, so you couldn't have been travelling at a speed enough to put the blame onto you. Though a view from your direction of travel would be helpful you can see that the cover is raised and fixed reference points such as the bollards help to show how much. Though it was resurfaced before you got the chance to take photos with a ruler etc a photo of it today would show the new height of the surface which should be the same as the old height, helping to show the height difference. This is mostly useful just to show the enemy how prepared you are to make a case.
What is that orange thing at the top left of the chicane - not a fallen over "RAMP" sign?

firepower · April 29, 2007, 01:08

thanks for the advice as for the orange thing on the floor i do not know what that was i only saw it on the photo , sat in the car and at night that thing was not very noticeable if i had seen it before i took the photo i may have moved it out of view s:twisted: :twisted: s:twisted: only joking the photos are as they should be a true representation of the road conditions i faced that night and i was as you say only travelling at about 5-10mph but that was one solid man hole cover

firepower · May 17, 2007, 21:32

I have now received a letter from the contractors rejecting my claim so it appears i shall have to take the claim through the courts.
the contractors defence points are

1. signs could not be located around the manhole due to restricting the road width and making the area unsafe for traffic

2. the manhole was adequately and correctly ramped off and should not have caused a hazard to traffic unless said traffic was speeding

3. adequate signage was positioned throughout the works to warn of ramping and the reduced speed limits in operation

4. we consider that we have undertaken the works in accordance with all safety measures so required under the contract.

we therefore feel that we are not liable for your claim and cannot help you further in this.

I think they must be talking about a different road works as i saw no warning signs , i do not think that the manhole was adequately ramped off , i certainly was not speeding and they admit that there were no warning signs around the raised manhole but there was no signs anywere along that road as my photos show
m http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/ ... C00443.jpg m

m http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/ ... C00438.jpg m

m http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u20/ ... C00419.jpg m

the first two pictures show the road now finished with my car parked at the junction were i turned left in to the traffic calming chicane and over the manhole cover that damaged my car at the bottom right of the picture
and the last two pictures show how the road was during the resurfacing work

Anonymous · May 17, 2007, 21:49

So basically it sounds as if they are suggesting that you were speeding! s:evil: :evil: s:evil:

And the excuses that they reason for no signs isnt a good enough answer, these sound like cowboys! i mean was there any ramping off, it doesnt appear so in your piccys Phil?!

I say take it to them Phil, with the picture evidence you supply that must surely have some weight behind your claim!

Anonymous · May 17, 2007, 21:56

I'd ask the council on their opinion, given what the contractors have told you and your site evidence. Do the council feel that adequate signage was used, and if you can get a hold of their specific rules for contractors working on roads. See what the details say there about what signage should be used, and see if they tally up.

firepower · May 17, 2007, 22:28

yeah the pictures i have show that there were no signs anywere it is difficult to see on the pics i have uploaded on photobucket but i have printed them off on A4 photo paper and the details show up very clearly and if as they say the manhole was adequately and correctly ramped off and given the fact i was driving along at a snails pace how come so much damage has been done to my car s:cry: :cry: s:cry:

good points dan i have been wondering about what signage is legaly required i will speak to the council again

Anonymous · May 18, 2007, 23:55

I think it is fairly clear from your pictures (and IMO the two from almost the same angle, I think it is number 2 and 4 in you post, are the most useful) that the manhole cover would be squarely under any car exiting the chicane, and therefore the wheels would not be on the ramped part and gain no benefit in raising the car height - i.e. that sucker is right under and liable to do harm. You will need measurements to back the pics up. Get the location of the cover from fixed points visable on the photos, and see how much below the kerb the surface now is.... you can show the height of those bollards and so show the depth of the road during resurfacing. From that you can show the height of the cover and by using the known height of the bollards as a scale show the width of the ramped surface by the cover. If that all works out to show your natural course would be over the bloody thing and it wouldn't clear your car at normal speed - given you had just pulled out of a junction too - I think you have a good case as your pic shows the complete lack of warning (assuming that red/orange blob isn't a "ramp" sign - but then if it is it appears to have fallen over)

firepower · May 20, 2007, 17:12

thanks for the advice si , went back yesterday and took some measurements the bollard is 38.5 inches high , the manhole cover is 25 inches wide and is dead centre of the chicane and the chicane width is 140 inches , using this scale i can now show that the road surface was 6-7 inches below the top surface of the cover and that the ramp only extended to two feet either side of the cover giving it a total width of only 73 inches , given the fact that the mr2 is 67 inches wide only the outer 3 inches of the ramp on either side would be driven over and was next to useless , the ramp may have been adequate on a road were it could be driven over using the left or right side of the car but not in the position it was were a car had to pass directly over it .

Anonymous · May 20, 2007, 17:55

Good work! I think Dan's suggestion of obtaining the rules for contractors should be followed up on... it maybe they followed guidlines but those guidelines don't take into account the effect of the chicane. Hit 'em with the figures and see where that takes you.