council liability ?

[firepower]

the council have claimed they are indemnified by the contractors against any claims for damages caused by the road works and the contractors deny any responsibility for the damage to my car so i have now issued a claim through the courts online which the contractors are defending .

does anyone know what the acts and regulations are regarding road works that could help me to prove my case thanks .

[roger]

the council have claimed they are indemnified by the contractors against any claims for damages caused by the road works

Thinking on, this could mean one of two things

1. The contractors will deal with any claims
2. The council will deal with the claim, and they will be refunded by the contractor.

However I reckon the council are ultimately responsible for the roads, and if there is a problem they get cannot get out of it by trying to pass it on to a contractor. If they lose, then a private agreement between them (which doesn't affect you) means they get the money from the contractor.

Under the circumstances I reckon you should claim from both.

[firepower]

thanks roger , the whole thing is long winded and difficult if only they would accept responsibility for thier own bad workmanship.
this is the letter I received from the council :-  

the road works were signed in accordance with chapter 8 traffic safety measures and signs for road works and temporary situations , under the terms of the new engineering contract the council is indemnified against all third party claims. your claim is therefore being dealt with by Joe
Dutton of Rhodes and sons construction Ltd .

the letter that i received from the contractor says :-

As we have previously stated , we are of the opinion that we are not liable for your claim and cannot help you further in this matter.

[roger]

Interesting.

I am sure you may have thought of this but-

Ask the council for a copy of Chaper 8. It's then up to you to show how the contractors failed to adhere to it.
Argue the definition of "indemnified", saying you are not party to that agreement therefore your argument is with them.

And for the contractor:-

According to the Council they ARE liable for the claim under the Indemnity agreement and you insist on being given the opportunity to argue your case, through the courts if necessary.

BTW head up each and every letter you send to either of them with WITHOUT PREJUDICE so you can argue points that you may want to contradict or withdraw later on, like telling the Council they are liable, but saying the same to the Contractor.

[normanh]

This might help but I am sure theres a lot more if I can find it as I once worked for a major contracting company. Every company must carry public liability insurance and must process claims not just dismissing them!

 m http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/consumption/g ... 043037.pdf m

normanh

[normanh]

Even better I have found the Traffic Signs Manual from the DOE refered to in the correspondance try this it looks very promising. Go for lack of procedures they dont like it up them, iscored 3 times against a county council on a different matter cos simply they didnt floow the right course!

 m http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/chapter8/ m

normanh  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[normanh]

Another but very legal is this, look down towards the end of the document at safety measures duties are listed!

 m http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Uk ... htm#mdiv65 m

normanh

[firepower]

thanks

chapter 8 states that under the health and safety act 1974 where works are in progress on the highway the person responsible for the works is under an obligation to any person using the highway to take such steps as reasonably practicable to protect them from harm and their property from damage. therfore sufficient warning signs , barriers and other measures needed to highlight any dangers should be placed at the site of the works to the extent necessary to discharge that obligation .

i could use this to prove my case along with my photo evidence as i do not feel that the contractor carried this out sufficiently enough to discharge their obligation to me .

[firepower]

finally got a date for my court hearing , the 5th of October the whole process has been delayed 3 weeks because the defence submitted by the contractor was struck out for being illegible they had hand written the defence in scrawl   s:roll: :roll: s:roll:  which i received a copy of and even i could not understand it and i know the details of the claim .

[uktotty]

my mate got £15,000 for a damaged scooter and broken arm and they fixed the hole too!!

Good luck

[Anonymous]

finally got a date for my court hearing , the 5th of October the whole process has been delayed 3 weeks because the defence submitted by the contractor was struck out for being illegible they had hand written the defence in scrawl   s:roll: :roll: s:roll:  which i received a copy of and even i could not understand it and i know the details of the claim .

Doesn't sound like they've employed a solicitor then    s:shock: :shock: s:shock:  

Good luck, you've certainly stuck up for yourself.

[firepower]

thanks everyone   s:D s:D   i'm not seeking any compo for the accident only for the damage caused to my car , for me it is just a matter of principal i feel that the contractors negligence was responsible for the accident so they should pay for the repairs but even if i lose my case i think i was right to take this action and would do again in the same circumstances .

[Paulpickerill]

thanks everyone   s:D s:D   i'm not seeking any compo for the accident only for the damage caused to my car , for me it is just a matter of principal i feel that the contractors negligence was responsible for the accident so they should pay for the repairs but even if i lose my case i think i was right to take this action and would do again in the same circumstances .

I think the legal stuff has been covered here - from your photos it is pretty obvious that the contractors failed to comply with the requirements of Ch8 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

Their only defence is that they did comply and some local scrotes nicked the signs, but you say you have them claiming

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.

Points 1 and 3 contradict each other, and point 1 is cobblers.  I'd also bet a fiver that point 4 is cobblers too, NO contractor EVER complies with ALL safety measures unless A Council Highways Technician is watching.

Oh, and if SimonP would like to spend a week finding out exactly how "These local government feck wits get away with wasting so much of our time and money they need to be held accountable!" then I'm sure something can be arranged, although I think his prejudices would be sadly shattered  s:) s:)  

Paul

Never criticize a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes.
Because then you will be a mile away, and have his shoes.

[firepower]

well i have had my court case this morning and there is good news   s:D s:D   and bad news   s:cry: :cry: s:cry:  ....... the good news is that the judge found in my favour so i won my case but the bad news is that he has only awarded 50% of my claim because in his opinion i should have been able to avoid the raised man hole cover ie : turned my car round or reversed back up the road . i have total respect for the judge and his finding he has done his best with the evidence before him but he was not the one faced with the situation i found myself in that night , but he agreed with me that the man hole cover , ramping and signage where not of a adequate standard
....... so i have mixed feeling about the out come of my case on the plus side i am almost £400 better off than if i had not brought the case , on the down side i will need to spend nearly £400 of my own money to replace my chassis brace . so i will need to consider what i should do .

[Wabbitkilla]

Go for the Corky alternative would be best imho.

[Anonymous]

Well, you have the moral victory at least. well done for sticking to your guns.

[normanh]

Better than nothing m8, u did the right thing, the contractor as always just dismissed your claim out of hand. His insurance co will foot the bill anyhow.Such a shame you have to fork out!!

normanh

[firepower]

yeah...... i feel better about the out come today   s:D s:D  i won my case and the contractors had always rejected any liability for the damage to my car which i have now been able to proved they where liable and i have been awarded 50% of my claim plus costs . thanks to everyone who offered advice to me on here and thanks si for your advice on getting the measurments of the bollards and road dimensions to show the height of the manhole cover as the judge actually grilled me on this point but i was able to show that the manhole cover was about 6 inches high eventhough the contractor claimed at the hearing the cover was no more tham 80mm high , so yeah i am the moral winner and i am £400 better off thanks all   s:lol: :lol: s:lol:

[northernalex]

Good outcome.. but for the judge to say you could have turned around...

shame you couldnt come back and say "a normal man of sound mind would not stop his car at every - NON SIGNPOSTED - obstical in the road and measure it before deciding to proceed"

Well done in getting the 400 quid though.