Damage to Alloy Wheel in Council Car park - Can I claim for the damage?

BeenThroughItAll

Crabman wrote: »

BCC is clear that Amey is liable for all claims, not the authority. So it is not accepted that there is a cost to the authority, if the people who negotiated the contract on behalf of the taxpayer fulfilled their roles competently.

And where does the money for the contract with Amey come from?

Oh yes. The council.

And where does their money come from?

Crabman

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

And where does the money for the contract with Amey come from?

Oh yes. The council.

And where does their money come from?

I'm afraid not - it doesn't come from the council, or taxpayers - it's a 25-year PFI arrangement:

https://www.amey.co.uk/amey-in-your-area/midlands/birmingham-highways-maintenance-and-management/

shaun_from_Africa

Crabman wrote: »

I'm afraid not - it doesn't come from the council, or taxpayers - it's a 25-year PFI arrangement:

https://www.amey.co.uk/amey-in-your-area/midlands/birmingham-highways-maintenance-and-management/

"It's a 25-year PFI arrangement" which started in 2010 yet Birmingham council still paid close to £84 million to Amey in 2012-2013.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_contracts_awarded_to_ame

InsideInsurance

Crabman wrote: »

BCC is clear that Amey is liable for all claims, not the authority. So it is not accepted that there is a cost to the authority, if the people who negotiated the contract on behalf of the taxpayer fulfilled their roles competently. Which is probably unlikely in the public sector.



It would be nice, but can you think of any possible disadvantages arising from this scenario?

Who was suggesting it was a desirable scenario?

As to Amey, you are simply adding another link to the chain not breaking the chain. I dont know the details of the Amey deal and others here seem to be contesting your understanding of it so lets deal with it on a very simple basis. Think of it like your insurance, if you make a claim then next year the price goes up. The amount payable by the council to Amey will also be impacted by the claims that Amey have had to pay out

Crabman

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Who was suggesting it was a desirable scenario?

As to Amey, you are simply adding another link to the chain not breaking the chain. I dont know the details of the Amey deal and others here seem to be contesting your understanding of it so lets deal with it on a very simple basis. Think of it like your insurance, if you make a claim then next year the price goes up. The amount payable by the council to Amey will also be impacted by the claims that Amey have had to pay out

You said, "If no one ever claimed against any council those reserves could be released and taxes lowered (assuming all other services remain equal)."

I saw this as a positive and desirable scenario where councils did their jobs without being negligent, where members of the public didn't suffer damage and therefore the council didn't have to pay damage claims. Apologies if I was wrong.

I know about the deal with Amey together with the way the PR was crafted by both Amey and BCC, but I'm not comfortable discussing or mentioning anything that I can't already find in the public domain.

Your analogy to insurance is a good one and not one that I dispute. However, no one has to renew a policy if the insurer raises their price. There is a free and open market - if Amey becomes uncompetitive when the contract ends in 2035, there will be others who will compete.

bigadaj

Crabman wrote: »

You said, "If no one ever claimed against any council those reserves could be released and taxes lowered (assuming all other services remain equal)."

I saw this as a positive and desirable scenario where councils did their jobs without being negligent, where members of the public didn't suffer damage and therefore the council didn't have to pay damage claims. Apologies if I was wrong.

I know about the deal with Amey together with the way the PR was crafted by both Amey and BCC, but I'm not comfortable discussing or mentioning anything that I can't already find in the public domain.

Your analogy to insurance is a good one and not one that I dispute. However, no one has to renew a policy if the insurer raises their price. There is a free and open market - if Amey becomes uncompetitive when the contract ends in 2035, there will be others who will compete.

So only twenty years to wait for that competitive alternative to arrive then!

PR is a fact of modern life, and only really works due to the stupidity and malleability of the general populace.

I also worked for amey on a similar public sector contract last year, and the vast majority of their work is cost reimbursable, as it is the only way they can manage the risk at a relatively reasonable cost.

Dr._Shoe

This sounds like the jolly jape at Christmas when some silly cow hit a pillar in a carpark!

InsideInsurance

Crabman wrote: »

I saw this as a positive and desirable scenario where councils did their jobs without being negligent, where members of the public didn't suffer damage and therefore the council didn't have to pay damage claims. Apologies if I was wrong.

No, it was a simple statement of fact. There would need to be a law giving them legal immunity rather than then doing their jobs as even if they themselves were perfect you will always get frivolous and vexatious claims which cost money to defend even if you know they will never come to anything.

Crabman wrote: »

Your analogy to insurance is a good one and not one that I dispute. However, no one has to renew a policy if the insurer raises their price. There is a free and open market - if Amey becomes uncompetitive when the contract ends in 2035, there will be others who will compete.

And the others will as part of their due diligence ask for all incurred losses to be declared. Again, this is exactly how it works when you are doing insurance. When you get your motor insurance quote you are asked to declare all incidents and claims and insurers factor it in when deciding what to charge.

timbotambo

George_Michael wrote: »

Wheel to wheel distance = 186cm
usable floor width of bay = 206cm


Therefore your tyres had a total of 20cm clearance (10 cm each side or to put it another way, 4" each side).
You should have been able to pull into a bay with 10cm clearance on each side or if you thought that it looked a bit tight, find a bay with more room.

Not quite, you need to account for the wingmirror.

timbotambo

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Sorry if you feel that any posts (mine included) were 'idiotic soapbox troll comments' because they didn't agree with your expectations for a few quid in compo.

My post wasn't intended to be 'trolling'. I just don't see why someone else should have to pay to fix damage caused by your own ineptitude.

Christ, firstly clipping a kerb by a few mm is "negligence" (clearly a student of law) and now it's "ineptitude". I feel saddened for the air that is wasted keeping you alive my friend, as clearly it can be better used elsewhere.

You also need to understand the difference between compensation and damages, I suspect that you'll struggle to learn that sat in your pants watching Jeremy Kyle all day.