Tar on Car: Council liable?

Weird_Nev

Hi all,
I've just had an entertaining 3 hours spraying my wifes car with WD40 and getting all the tar off of it:
Basically, we park in a bay near our house. There is a pothole by it, it's been there years. A few weeks ago, a couple of lads came by, tipped 2 sacks of tarmac into the hole, tamped it down and left. Every passing car then sprayed tarmac over the car. The repair fell apart again through the frost and snow, and it's since been re-repaired. The upshot of this is my car (and our neigbours car, but that's black!) have been covered in Tarmac:





What do you reckon the chances of getting a small claim out of the council are, mainly to make them wise up and repair stuff properly? I was thinking £6 for my can of WD40, and £40 for my time or something?

Car's still not perfect, but it will have to do for now.

eschaton

Why use WD40 when you could have used tar remover?

It's Weird Nev

Quentin

Might be worth adding to your claim if you have any mud/bird dung/dog mess etc to clean off, as the council shouldn't allow it on your road, should they?

Weird_Nev

Quentin wrote: »

Might be worth adding to your claim if you have any mud/bird dung/dog mess etc to clean off, as the council shouldn't allow it on your road, should they?

Actually, there was some red kite poo on the roof. The council shouldn't really let them breed like they do. I'll add that to the letter. Also, the car was covered in road salt. I'm sure they used too much of that this winter, probably took me anohter 15 mins to get it off, so I'll call that £4.30.

Genuine responses only please. Road grime I can handle. A car that's been showered with tar because of a poor road repair (wife saw them do the 'work') is not what I pay my rates for.

WD40? It works, it was in my shed....

Crabman

I imagine it would come under the council's duty of care - a pothole repair should not start to fall apart that quickly and it should be completed with reasonable care and skill.

Do you have a legal helpline with your breakdown/home/car insurance? May be worth asking them.

I see the same potholes being filled in and then crumbling soon afterwards. Yet the private contractors who come out to fill them get paid for every repair. It's in their interest to do poor quality repairs. Nice little earner.

neilmcl

eschaton wrote: »

Why use WD40 when you could have used tar remover?

It's Weird Nev

WD40 is very effective and well known, cheap way getting rid of road tar, insects, bird lime etc.

mcjordi

use white spirit next time... its cheaper thanwd40;)

s_b

i think its homing tar and it likes snot green so obviously feels attracted to it:D

vaio

Weird_Nev wrote: »

.....What do you reckon the chances of getting a small claim out of the council are, mainly to make them wise up and repair stuff properly? I was thinking £6 for my can of WD40, and £40 for my time or something?.......

With high quality pictures like that you can be pretty sure the council (or rather their insurer) will pay

Downside is they will probably put it on the CUE database so you'll get a non fault on your record and likely pick up a premium loading for the next 3/5 years

vikingaero

eschaton wrote: »

Why use WD40 when you could have used tar remover?

It's Weird Nev

WD40 is a good solvent. Doesn't matter if you use either as you'll still need to re-wax it.

Weird_Nev

vaio wrote: »

With high quality pictures like that you can be pretty sure the council (or rather their insurer) will pay

Downside is they will probably put it on the CUE database so you'll get a non fault on your record and likely pick up a premium loading for the next 3/5 years

Is that actually the case? It would be an "insurance claim" for the purposes of car insurance?

I wouldn't have even considered that, and to be honest if that is the case it would negate any point in claiming? Surely, if that'st the case it invokes the Excess anyway?

Wouldn't affect me directly as it's my wifes company car and insured through the lease scheme isurance, but still....