Paying to replace a damaged bollard

Manxman_in_exile

AdrianC said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

I'm guessing your the type who has never made a mistake, personal responsibility?? don't make me laugh!, the OP DID take responsibility by knocking on her door, another person  may have just drove off so i guess I'm right then, personal responsibility IS optional    

Now the OP needs to take that personal responsibility all the way through, by not weaselling about paying for the damage they caused through their careless incompetence.

The owner of the damaged property is being kind enough to offer them an alternative to an insurance claim.
Pay or claim. They are the choices.

I think that's the point onlyfoolsandparking obviously doesn't understand.  There's no merit or virtue in "doing the right thing" in a half-arsed way.  If you own up to the damage, don't try to weasel out of it by not getting it fixed properly.  You just end up looking (and being) cheap.

Car_54

Hermione_Granger said:

Car_54 said:

Hermione_Granger said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

How are they a plank when they did the decent thing and knocked on the door, you sound like her!!

You refer to what they did as the "decent thing".
Most people would simply call it what it was which was complying with their legal obligations.

Did he have a legal obligation? The bollard was privately owned, which implies that the impact was not on a a road or public place and so the Road Traffic Act did not apply.

Just because bollards are privately owned doesn't mean that access to them can't be on a road or public place. Many houses and properties have privately owned gates and bollards at their entrances:

If I was to drive into those bollards, would it class as private land where insurance was not required?

Insurance is not the issue. The OP is clearly liable, whether he was insured or not.
The question is whether the RTA obligation to report applies, since the collision didn't take place on a road or public place, but while he was trespassing on the bollard-owners private property.
There was a recent thread where an OP's car was whacked in his driveway: the police shrugged it off as a civil matter.

onlyfoolsandparking

Manxman_in_exile said:

AdrianC said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

I'm guessing your the type who has never made a mistake, personal responsibility?? don't make me laugh!, the OP DID take responsibility by knocking on her door, another person  may have just drove off so i guess I'm right then, personal responsibility IS optional    

Now the OP needs to take that personal responsibility all the way through, by not weaselling about paying for the damage they caused through their careless incompetence.

The owner of the damaged property is being kind enough to offer them an alternative to an insurance claim.
Pay or claim. They are the choices.

I think that's the point onlyfoolsandparking obviously doesn't understand.  There's no merit or virtue in "doing the right thing" in a half-arsed way.  If you own up to the damage, don't try to weasel out of it by not getting it fixed properly.  You just end up looking (and being) cheap.

Obviously!! and you obviously know that the OP is trying to 'weasel' their way out of it just by attempting to have a conversation with the woman who is being unreasonable AND threatening him with Court over a trivial matter, it's all so obvious really lol.

MinuteNoodles

onlyfoolsandparking said:

With the attitude she's got I wouldn't be paying anything.

So if I hit the back of your car with my lorry and write it off and you get a bit shouty with me that means I'm let off compensating you for the damage I did?

AdrianC

onlyfoolsandparking said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AdrianC said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

I'm guessing your the type who has never made a mistake, personal responsibility?? don't make me laugh!, the OP DID take responsibility by knocking on her door, another person  may have just drove off so i guess I'm right then, personal responsibility IS optional    

Now the OP needs to take that personal responsibility all the way through, by not weaselling about paying for the damage they caused through their careless incompetence.

The owner of the damaged property is being kind enough to offer them an alternative to an insurance claim.
Pay or claim. They are the choices.

I think that's the point onlyfoolsandparking obviously doesn't understand.  There's no merit or virtue in "doing the right thing" in a half-arsed way.  If you own up to the damage, don't try to weasel out of it by not getting it fixed properly.  You just end up looking (and being) cheap.

Obviously!! and you obviously know that the OP is trying to 'weasel' their way out of it just by attempting to have a conversation with the woman who is being unreasonable AND threatening him with Court over a trivial matter, it's all so obvious really lol.

You miss the point completely.

The owner of the damaged property has had a quote.
The person who damaged it thinks they can get a mate to do it on the cheap. They aren't "trying to have a conversation". They're trying to bully the person whose property they damaged into cutting corners.

Nope. Don't work like that...
Either accept that offer, or put it to insurance.

The property owner is under zero obligation to do anybody any favours.

onlyfoolsandparking

MinuteNoodles said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

With the attitude she's got I wouldn't be paying anything.

So if I hit the back of your car with my lorry and write it off and you get a bit shouty with me that means I'm let off compensating you for the damage I did?

As is often with your replies, the bigger picture eludes you and comparing writing a car off to a damaged bollard is a bit silly, don't you think?

Even though I'm being slaughtered on this thread, my point is YES I UNDERSTAND the OP damaged a persons property BUT did the right thing and knocked on the door in an attempt to start the ball rolling in rectifying the damage. NOBODY ON HERE apart from the OP can clarify why the woman was 'unreasonable' and threatening Court etc. I suspect and I say SUSPECT the OP was a bit 'rough' in their approach in offering to put things right but from reading the OP,s first post it didn't look that way. 

Now moving on, YES I UNDERSTAND the woman has every right to choose how the damage is repaired BUT IMO has no right to make unfair demands on the OP or threaten them. People should be able to sort out minor issues without resorting to threats and legal action, sadly I don't think that happens too often in today's climate.

I don't believe the OP is taking the p**s with their suggestions on fixing the damage BUT unless the OP comes back to clarify nobody on here will know either. I'm out!
    


  

AdrianC

onlyfoolsandparking said:
my point is YES I UNDERSTAND the OP damaged a persons property BUT did the right thing and knocked on the door in an attempt to start the ball rolling in rectifying the damage.

But is now trying to cut corners and call in mate's rates in an attempt to reduce the cost of his incompetence.

YES I UNDERSTAND the woman has every right to choose how the damage is repaired BUT IMO has no right to make unfair demands on the OP

Are the demands "unfair"?
For a folding bollard to be hit so hard as to pull two-thirds of the fixings out of the ground, I'd be astonished if it was undamaged.

And, no, bapping a couple of new bolts into the ground, or getting some random builder mate to "take a look" - and then getting upset when the owner refuses - is not reasonable of the OP

People should be able to sort out minor issues without resorting to threats and legal action, sadly I don't think that happens too often in today's climate.

People should be able to come to mature agreement, yes. But when one side refuses to accept the consequences of their error unless they can bodge it on the cheap, and - we can only presume - refuses to give their insurance details, what other route does the owner have but legal action?

Jack_Cork

AdrianC said:

Are the demands "unfair"?
For a folding bollard to be hit so hard as to pull two-thirds of the fixings out of the ground, I'd be astonished if it was undamaged.

Depends on how well it was installed, and with what? Maybe three x size 12 wood screws, or 3 x M12 raw bolts and into what, concrete, tarmac, we just dont know

Mercdriver

AdrianC said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

AdrianC said:

onlyfoolsandparking said:

I'm guessing your the type who has never made a mistake, personal responsibility?? don't make me laugh!, the OP DID take responsibility by knocking on her door, another person  may have just drove off so i guess I'm right then, personal responsibility IS optional    

Now the OP needs to take that personal responsibility all the way through, by not weaselling about paying for the damage they caused through their careless incompetence.

The owner of the damaged property is being kind enough to offer them an alternative to an insurance claim.
Pay or claim. They are the choices.

I think that's the point onlyfoolsandparking obviously doesn't understand.  There's no merit or virtue in "doing the right thing" in a half-arsed way.  If you own up to the damage, don't try to weasel out of it by not getting it fixed properly.  You just end up looking (and being) cheap.

Obviously!! and you obviously know that the OP is trying to 'weasel' their way out of it just by attempting to have a conversation with the woman who is being unreasonable AND threatening him with Court over a trivial matter, it's all so obvious really lol.

The property owner is under zero obligation to do anybody any favours.

No, of course not, but they are under full obligation to mitigate their costs by either doing multiple quotes or allowing the OP to provide reasonable receipted and warranted repair quotations.  

Aretnap

Mercdriver said:

No, of course not, but they are under full obligation to mitigate their costs by either doing multiple quotes or allowing the OP to provide reasonable receipted and warranted repair quotations.  

This isn't correct I'm afraid. There is no obligation to seek multiple quotes or try to get the beat possible value. The person whose property is damaged will be entitled to claim for any repair costs they reasonably incur. Reasonable does not mean cheapest possible, it means anything that a reasonable person might choose to do if they were paying for the repairs themselves. Relevant case law is Coles v Hetherton (2013) if you would like to Google. 

 So if the woman wants to get a trusted tradesman to do a thorough job she is almost certainly within her rights. She doesn't have to ring round loads of people from the phone book to try to shave a few quid off the price, and certainly doesn't have to accept the OP's kind offer to get his mate to bodge it up with a bit of gaffer tape. Basically the OP is not in a strong position; his choice is really to pay the woman what she wants, or to hand it over to his insurers to deal with.