hit a pothole and substantial damage...

vaio

computershack wrote: »

So he's driving on the road illegally then? Parked up off the road and booked in for an MOT on Monday is it or is he intending continuing his criminal act until he can be bothered?

You are aware that most insurers will invalidate his insurance in the event of a claim and if he hits someone, they'll sue him for the payout?

Nonsense, search for one of the numerous threads that have discussed this previously

OP…….lack of MOT will have no effect on your claim

atrixblue.-MFR-.

computershack wrote: »

So he's driving on the road illegally then? Parked up off the road and booked in for an MOT on Monday is it or is he intending continuing his criminal act until he can be bothered?

You are aware that most insurers will invalidate his insurance in the event of a claim and if he hits someone, they'll sue him for the payout?

ignore numpty. another one that thinks no mot no insurance?

Deals_2

so all sorted now. just up to us women to keep these men up to scratch then!!!

computershack wrote: »

So he's driving on the road illegally then? Parked up off the road and booked in for an MOT on Monday is it or is he intending continuing his criminal act until he can be bothered?

You are aware that most insurers will invalidate his insurance in the event of a claim and if he hits someone, they'll sue him for the payout?

Deals_2

"typical"criminals that you talk about in the papers!!! and most of them are young silly boys anyway

waynedance wrote: »

Should not have been on the road in 1st place...........there is your answer.

Sick of illegal cars on he road, ANPR all the way.

Sorry to sound harsh.............

Deals_2

go for the claim anyway making sure you read the website claim info in detail and that you have covered all aspects that might spring up.

Theo_Cupier wrote: »

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I've also had quite a bit of damage from a pothole recently (new allow, new tyre, suspension damage).

I filled in the form from my Council and have received a response denying all liability. Their reason is that they assert that the road is of a type that should be checked every 4 months and they say that this road was checked about a month before my incident and they did not notice the pothole I hit at this time. They claim this means that the pothole must have arisen since this report and hence, they feel this absolves them of liability.

My view is that this is clearly guff since the pothole I hit is large and doesn't look new (highly scientific I know) and I am sure I remember seeing it, and other similar holes, on previous occasions when I used that road.

What I'm not clear on is how to proceed from here. So far as I can tell, I need to prove a negative - ie that their report is deficient and that the hole WAS long standing but overlooked by their survey.

Have I got this correct? If so, beyond inventing time travel to get evidence of the hole's existence from before their last report, what can I do?

If I've misunderstood, what should I be doing next?

Theo_Cupier

Thanks Deals.

I'm waiting for the FOI request I submitted to come through to give me the history of their inspections of that road, to see if any cracks in the procedure emerge.