Local authority damaged my car now their insurance wont pay out?

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain

Dont know the ins and outs but from what i can gather, the key thing seems to be the Public Liability... The council arent insuring all their staff for any accidental damage they might do, more if they're negligent (not sure how you will ever prove that).

In the car crash case above its not comparable... the other driver is required by law to have third party liability for driving the car on the road, doesnt seem the council do for their workman.

Another scenario is that a kiddie kicks a stone whilst larking about... who takes the hit then? (other than throttling them if you can catch them :-))

If it cost you alot (mine didnt so couldnt be bothered) then a follow up letter wouldnt do any harm, but hey there are worse things in the world... perhaps be grateful it was just the window and not half a rock into the wing.

bristol_pilot

In my area the Council gives householders advance notice of this type of work being carried out so that people can move their cars etc.

Whilst it may be unreasonable for the Council workers to 'pick up every stone', I think it would be reasonable to give advance notice of the work being done. Thus they could be negligent in not having done so.

dacouch

TighterThanTwoCoatsOfPain wrote: »

Dont know the ins and outs but from what i can gather, the key thing seems to be the Public Liability... The council arent insuring all their staff for any accidental damage they might do, more if they're negligent (not sure how you will ever prove that).

In the car crash case above its not comparable... the other driver is required by law to have third party liability for driving the car on the road, doesnt seem the council do for their workman.

Another scenario is that a kiddie kicks a stone whilst larking about... who takes the hit then? (other than throttling them if you can catch them :-))

If it cost you alot (mine didnt so couldnt be bothered) then a follow up letter wouldnt do any harm, but hey there are worse things in the world... perhaps be grateful it was just the window and not half a rock into the wing.

The ins and outs of it are like anyone else in the UK they only have to pay out for damage they do that they are "Legally liable for". The UK law deems you to be legally liable if the damage you caused "Could have REASONABLLY been avoided".

Its the same principle as when you go in a Mcdonalds toilet there is a note on the wall that the toilet cleaners sign, date and time each time they check and clean the toilets. This is sufficient under UK law to prove they have taken "Reasonable steps" to prevent someone slipping on water etc. UK law does not expect Mcdonalds (Or any other business) to have someone in their toilet just in case their is a spill as this would not be reasonable / practical


So by checking the area for stones the council (If they have checked) will have done everythiing "Reasonable" to avoid damage to persons / property.

Public Liability is not a compulsory insurance, the only Insurance policies that are compulsory in the UK are Vehicle Insurance and Employers Liability.

pedro123456

Ok, first things first.
Dacouch and matty have a point, the legal angle appears to be well covered as far as the council/IC are concerned, however as I understand it, what has/is happening is wrong, and although its legal standing may be relevant in the court, we aint in that ball park yet.

So again my advice would be, argue the toss with the council from a public morality /ethicality point of view via a letter straight to the council (nothing ventured, nothing gained etc)

In the meantime look at avenues to support the claim that the council workers :

A- Took reasonable steps to avoid an incident and as dacouch says ask for proof as they did log their search for stones etc.
B- Used the correct equipment to avoid an incident, IMO strimmers are not the tool to cut grass, how many of us cut grass with a strimmer, not many. We use lawn mowers grass cutters, strimmers tend to be used for tidying edges and/or bringing down long grass. Was the grass verge long grass, if so its difficult to imagine a stone being propelled fast enough to damage a car window etc.
C- Ask neighbours for their input and observations.

With a view to contesting a obvious, cop out by both the council and IC


So for my money, and this is what I would do, get at the council/MP by way of letters first, and see how things pan out

dacouch

You could also ask for their Risk Assesements / Method Statements, I'm not sure they will supply them buts its worth a try (You could also advise them you will put in a Freedom of Information Request if they say no), the hassle of providing them may influence them paying your claim.

I would be inclined to gather evidence eg video them when they turn up outside your home or another area, so you can show they do not perform the checks. I say this as Pedro pointed out before once they have been alerted that you want to pursue this claim their manager may tell them to start checking for stones

pedro123456

Yes, sorry dacouch.

Look at video evidence as dacouch earlier suggested to help “prove/disprove” their claim that’s a good point.

Crazy_Jamie

I dealt with a near identical claim a couple of months ago on behalf of a very well known company that shall remain nameless. Basically the claim had gone through their in house legal team (which is effectively where this claim is now with the Zurich claim handlers), and then once the Claimants had issued proceedings it had been outsourced to my firm, and came to me. The claim was for a couple of hundred pounds. My client had claimed that all risk assessments had been done and that the machinery used was not defective etc.

Long story short there is actually an argument to be had here legally, and is one that, if pushed, could well be drawn out. And for a couple of hundred quid it was not worth it in the slightest. I advised my client to settle, which they did, and they paid the repair costs and court issue fees. If that became drawn out (and it probably would have been), it would have gone to trial and, even if I'd won (which I may well have done), it would have cost my client far more than the cost of those repairs in my legal fees, which would not have been recoverable due to it being a small claim. So settling was in the interest of economics even though there were prospects of success.

What you do with this information is up to you. I'm not saying for certain that if you pushed this Zurich (or the solicitors they may instruct) would move towards settlement. But the lesson here is that practicalities mean more than principles a lot of the time, especially when a company that commonly deals with claims for tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds is faced with one for a couple of hundred pounds.

dacouch

A helpful post Jamie.

So having read Jamie's post, it would appear that the best bet is to get gain evidence and write to Zurich and as Pedro suggested local council / MP so they know you mean business and will not go away. They are then more likely to pay your claim rather than go to the cost and time of defending it

pedro123456

Shame I go to go golfing today, ill catch up 2morra though.

Lorian

IANAL but surely if they were mitigating the risk of damage by checking for stones, they were neglegent in their check as a stone clearly still existed?

As someone who strims regularly around my own car, I also know it's important to keep my back to the car while strimming, so the car, as well as me, is protected by the stone guard.