Pothole damage rejected for fraud.

dld2s

cubegame wrote: »

Regardless of the in and outs of this case it really !!!!es me off when anyone us claiming for pothole damage.

No wonder the roads don't get repaired. It goes to pay careless people who drive cars with fragile inappropriate wheels and tyres when they fail to notice a hazard.

If you can't see a pothole and avoid you wouldn't see a child stepping into the road.

I think your child analogy is a little flawed, if someone is spending more time looking for potholes then they are not looking out for that child stepping on to the road, also some potholes are just not noticeable until you hit them or just before you hit them for a variety of reasons, for example, badly lit roads, low sun, other road users, looking out for other hazards etc.

Yes I have unavoidably hit a couple of potholes causing damage to my tyres & wheels and the cost over the 2 incidents probably
cost me less than £200, no I have never claimed the council for repairs, I took it as a every day driving expense, but when you think about it we shouldn't and all of us should claim for pothole damages caused, maybe then our roads will get repaired quicker, we pay enough VAT & Taxes on not just car tax, Vat etc, on our cars fuel, accessories etc. but every day things, that our roads should be in a reasonable state and repaired in a reasonable time.


PS: I do think I may have claimed from the council if the costs were the same as the OP's

Herzlos

I think the problem is that you told them it was a cash in hand repair (almost always a tax dodge), and that you had to fabricate the invoice. Thus they still have no evidence that that's what it cost you and what you actually got. I could produce the same invoice without having ever owner a MB or been on that road.



You'd have been much better getting an above board repair from MB, and getting the council to pay that.

Zainie786 wrote: »

4. Cars today are a lot more flimsier especially as alloy wheels are now pretty much the standard. Merc wheels are especially fragile and I’ve had lots of small cracks develop in wheels in the past. Surely this should be accounted for when road maintaining.

It's very much the onus of the car manufacturer to produce a car that's up to the roads, not for the council to produce a road that's OK for the car.

soolin

There's also this bit from the OP'

the garage we went to is no longer registered so they are not allowed to trade,

Is this true, or if not have you considered at least getting this accusation overturned by providing whatever paperwork is needed to show garage is still trading ,supplying accounts and registered to pay tax with HMRC?

'Cash in hand' is often used as a euphemism for 'not declaring to the tax man' and I wondered if there is any benefit in proving this is not what happened here. If it has been properly declared then could it not be argued that whilst the invoice was made up later- one would still actually be due if only to add to the tax file?

Obviously if you are saying this was never declared then I suspect HE have a point and it may not advantage you at all to press the matter.

macman

I despair: when they said that the 'original invoice' was not required, that simply means that you could supply a copy of it in the form of a photocopy or photo of it, not that you can make up a fake one to the same value!
Your invoice was not a 'non original': it was a forgery or fake. Which is fraudulent.