Received bill from Highways Agency after car accident

eddddy

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Why does their need to be legislation?

The law of torts is common law and not formed in legislation. A negligent party is liable for the reasonable cost of its victims as a direct result of the negligent act.

If you have damaged street furniture or have triggered cleanup/ site visits etc then you are liable to pay those costs. The OP could try and challenge over if the costs are reasonable but on the basis it is covered by the Third Party Liability section of their Motor policy then any contesting the costs is really something done for "fun" or "principle" rather than any money saving consideration.

Hi InsideInsurance

I agree with most of what you say - except the bit where you seem to say the negligent party has to pay simply because they've triggered a site visit (even if the site visit determines that there is no damage or clean up required). I don't think that's supported in common law. (i.e. "We thought you may have caused some damage, so we did an inspection. We didn't find any damage, but you still have to pay for the inspection".)

There is a suggestion further up the thread that £500 was purely an inspection fee. If the OP suspects that is the case, then spacey2012's suggestion might make sense.

Perhaps the insurance company would pay the £500 without question; perhaps the HA know this; perhaps that's why they might issue questionable invoices. So as you say, it's down to a point of principle whether the OP challenges it or not.

Norman_Castle

I expect this will be covered by your and the other drivers insurance but I would still ask exactly what you are being charged for and advise your insurer there was no apparent damage after the accident. It is possible spurious claims are being made.

bod1467

Norman_Castle wrote: »

It is possible spurious claims are being made.

Which is one of the factors in pushing up EVERYONE's premiums.

Jamie_Carter

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I expect this will be covered by your and the other drivers insurance but I would still ask exactly what you are being charged for and advise your insurer there was no apparent damage after the accident. It is possible spurious claims are being made.

It is possible, but not very likely from the Highways Agency.

£500 could be for just one slightly bent metal fence post, when you take into account the cost of the post, labour, admin, traffic control, etc...

Buzby

I just wonder if they billed BOTH drivers?

InsideInsurance

eddddy wrote: »

Hi InsideInsurance

I agree with most of what you say - except the bit where you seem to say the negligent party has to pay simply because they've triggered a site visit (even if the site visit determines that there is no damage or clean up required). I don't think that's supported in common law. (i.e. "We thought you may have caused some damage, so we did an inspection. We didn't find any damage, but you still have to pay for the inspection".)

The measure is about reasonableness. If someone drove into the side of your house it would be reasonable to get a structural engineer to check everything is ok even if there is little visual damage.

Jamie_Carter

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The measure is about reasonableness. If someone drove into the side of your house it would be reasonable to get a structural engineer to check everything is ok even if there is little visual damage.

Also if the car hit the safety railings and there is any damage at all, even if it is just a slight bend, then the HA will replace it. This slight bend may not be obvious to the OP, the same as a broken concrete base may not be obvious. But it would still be labour intensive.