Bill for breaking down on the motorway..

rs65

Sally_A wrote: »

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.

I've seen bills following accidents before but following breakdowns is a new one to me.

mikey72

Gavin_C wrote: »

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:

It Admiral are confident that they are not liable, I wonder how the HA would get on it court proving the driver was liable?

mikey72

Gavin_C wrote: »

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.

I think you're missing the basic point on how insurance is supposed to work.

huckster

Sally_A wrote: »

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.

Sally, who is responsible for the damage to the M5 motorway, after the massive accident on bonfire night. The first vehichle that caused the accident or the local Rugby club who had the firework display near the motorway. As as I know, the relevant inquiries have not been held into the cause of the accident and who may be responsible.

The carriageway on the motorway I believe had to be resurfaced as it had been so badly damaged. Very expensive. Could not see the Highways agency or A1 Plus, looking at liability over the damage and clearup of the motorway, as it would be too complicated. Therefore I think they must just go after easy wins, where the motorist will pay. I have not come across an Insurer paying out for a spillage on a motorway.

prowla

£300 for damage to a motorway???
Seriously, how could they possibly make sense of that amount?
There is no way that any part of the motorway could be repaired for £300.
It is a nonsense.

Sally_A

re the M5 bonfire....haven't got a clue, but I bet there were at least a dozen insurers appointing legal peeps to wriggle out of paying the whole bill.

I believe the club having the firework display were cleared, as this ended prior to the incident, but I bet their insurers have spent the best part of £1/2m proving that.

If it's ever pinpointed to one particular vehicle, you can bet your bottom dollar they will all be after them like vultures for compensation.

globalds

This was on BBC news channel too.
The £300 - reduced now to £200 was for A highways agency person putting down some oil spill granules and sweeping them back up to clean up the residue left after a fire crew had washed the leak fuel away.
I think the contention from insurance side was that the fuel leak was not part of an accident ... It was a fuel pipe that just split .. spilling fuel over the carriageway.

huckster

prowla wrote: »

£300 for damage to a motorway???
Seriously, how could they possibly make sense of that amount?
There is no way that any part of the motorway could be repaired for £300.
It is a nonsense.

Perhaps people should now start carrying some form of clean up materials and if they spill anything, they can put on a yellow flourescent jacket, so they can do their own clean up to potentially save money.

When the first people who do this get run over and killed, then this practice of trying to get the motorists to pay, might be stopped. Or probably not, as I expect that the Insurers and Highways agency will try to claim of the dead persons estate.

What is the world coming to !