Bill for breaking down on the motorway..

Sally_A

Did anyone else here Moneybox today? A lady was billed for £300ish after her car broke down, and she accepts that fuel went onto the motorway.

Admiral said she wasn't covered as she never had the breakdown cover extension.....what???? Surely any leakage, or an item falling from a vehicle is covered under their insurance , under the basic RTA rulings; the breakdown extension is totally irrelevant.

huckster

Don't know as not come across this. Third party liability for accidental fuel spillage on Motorway ? The person was not negligent in anyway, unless it was proven that they had not maintained their car. Therefore not sure on the legal basis for a claim under a liability Insurance.

Not sure about fuel spillage being covered under a breakdown policy either.

dtaylor84

Isn't the £300 bill for repairing/recovering her broken car, and nothing to do with the spilled fuel?

chanz4

it will be for recovery off the motorway, it costs stupid.

huckster

dtaylor84 wrote: »

Isn't the £300 bill for repairing/recovering her broken car, and nothing to do with the spilled fuel?

Listen to the programme, about 5 mins in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01kjgp5/Money_Box_07_07_2012/

It sounds to be a state arranged rip off, that motorists are now liable for any spillages they cause on Motorways. And you are not covered by Insurance.

The dodgy element is that the Highway Agency has contracted out to a newly set up company A1+ who are owned by three big building companies. ( Think this should be looked into. I have my theory, but if I were to type this, it would get deleted by mods.)

Hazzanet

I sense there's more to this than meets the eye. The lady was saying that the charge was for "damage" to the carriageway, but Admiral wouldn't pay as they didn't cover breakdown.

If this is accurate then Admiral should have taken the bull by the horns - damage to third party property through use of the vehicle; the breakdown is immaterial in my opinion.

That then brings in Huckster's query - was the car properly maintained? If so then no liability should have attached as the driver of the vehicle had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the fuel leak.

Paul Lewis didn't give any details of what the invoice was for, and didn't explore why Admiral wouldn't entertain the claim. The article was lacking in some areas and left more questions than it answered.

huckster

Hazzanet wrote: »

If this is accurate then Admiral should have taken the bull by the horns - damage to third party property through use of the vehicle; the breakdown is immaterial in my opinion.

That then brings in Huckster's query - was the car properly maintained? If so then no liability should attached as the driver of the vehicle had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the fuel leak.

Paul Lewis didn't give any details of what the invoice was for, and didn't explore why Admiral wouldn't entertain the claim. The article was lacking in some areas and left more questions than it answered.

Agree with your rationale. Admiral may have looked into this and could not find any liability that they would be responsible for.

I do hope that at some stage this charging of motorway users for accidental spillages is tested in the high court. Sounds to be highly dubious to me.

In theory, if something hard was left on the motorway and a motorist drove over it causing the fuel tank to be ruptured, with fuel being spilt all over the motorway, the Highways Agency via A1 plus, would try to hold the motorist responsible for the clear up cost. This could then be argued as wrong, as the Highways Agency had failed to ensure that debris (hard object) had been removed from the motorway.

When all the cars crashed on the M5 on bonfire night last year, did the Highways Agency via A1 plus, send a clean up bill to all the motorists involved ? I doubt it, as it would have caused public/media uproar.

I predict that this issue could well turn into a mini scandal at some point.

Sally_A

Thanks Hazzanet, thought I was missing something that Moneybox had not delved further into basic RTA liability.

Had the unfortunate lady who broke down, leaked fuel/oil onto the carriageway, which caused a subsequent accident, regardless of if they were negligent or not, Admiral would have coughed up in the end.

If a caravan disintegrates, the motor insurance picks up damaged caused by flying debris (unless there is more specific caravan cover in force). If a skip lorry drops a stone that cracks your windscreen, you can claim from them, so basically any leakage/debris falling/coming from a car should be under the same legislation. We had a claim paid where a lady ripped her dress on the trim of a taxi. It seems that all injuries/damage arising from/in/around a motor vehicle are picked up under strict liability of the RTA.

I think the person on the end of the phone heard "breakdown" in the conversation, said there was no breakdown cover, and totally got the wrong end of the stick regarding RTA liability , probably finished the sentence with "Have a nice day" and hung up.

I've always found Admiral quite helpful in the claims department, but guess this never got that far, ie to the peeps that have had better training rather than the first port of call, call centre.

Gavin_C

It appears this is a new initiative by the Highways Agency, who like other government departments, is being squeezed for cash.

So the HA have outsourced some of their work, and obviously taking the lowest bidder.

To make money, those contractors bill the driver or their insurers for work they carry out where damage can be directly attributed to that road user. This is actually part of their contract with the HA to make such billings; the HA saying it would be unfair to expect other tax payers to have to fund such damage.

Interesting to note that the AA spokesperson (Paul Watters) said whilst these types of bills should be expected more and more due to the new contracts the HA is now putting out to tender, he hoped this would not lead to 'opportunistic money raising on the part of those operators'.

Interesting to then note that despite A-one+ Integrated Highway Services after an unsuccessful attempt to secure a payment of £326 (against what is said to be a very detailed bill) from the driver's insurer, Admiral, as the insurer denies any liability on their part, the operator is prepared to accept a payment of just £200 from the driver for the same work. :cool:

Gavin_C

Of course, if insurers do start accepting responsibilty for these bills, it will inevitably lead to a rise in the already expensive premiums for all of us.

Sally_A

It's not new....of all the accidents that have damaged bollards, lampposts etc, I'd say only 5% tops of councils have tried to recover their outlay.