Pot Hole Claim M6 J3 Northbound February 2020

davidglewis

wow, i must say i am amazed where this thread has gone!...just to respond to some comments made some very helpful folk, the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them. I accept that i am in a almost privileged to be able to own a car like this, but I still dont see why having 20" wheels with run flats means that i have to suffer the consequences! i couldn't avoid the pothole - i didnt see it - it was 6:20am in February - it was dark. The hard shoulder wasn't available as it was closed due to roadworks and was limited to 50mph. I do have insurance, but i dont see why i should suffer from increased premiums that will no doubt happen if i made a claim when i was completely not at fault. Following an FOI request, HE has said that 4 other people suffered the same issue on this stretch at the same time. i have attached an image of the pothole that they have provided and my point i that i simply cant understand how this could have appeared within half a day in lane 3 where there are no HGV's or the like using it? My wish by starting this post was that someone might offer some helpful advice and maybe one of the other 4 people might read this and contact me and tell their story? i really didnt expect a load of abuse tbh.

AdrianC

davidglewis said:

the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them.

They would almost certainly have been an extra-cost option, not standard. (I trust they've been declared as such to your insurer?)
The typical UK BMW buyer does have a fetish for very low profile tyres on big alloys - standard 5-series estate fitment in the UK is currently 18" on SE, 19" on M-Sport, with 20" optional. In Germany, though, 17" are standard fit for what they call the "Basis" model, not offered here. Oh, and another side disadvantage of the very large rims? Speccing a "Basis" 520i from 17" to 20" increases CO2 from 126g/km to 131g/km, because of the higher rolling resistance of the tyres.

But that doesn't change the basic reality of the situation here. Very low profile tyres simply ARE far more at risk of damage from poor road surfaces.

You haven't been abused. All that is being said is that there is a very easy way to reduce the risk of damage in a similar situation - drive a car with a less extreme tyre profile. It will also drastically reduce the cost of repairing the damage even if the situation does reoccur.

Highways England have done nothing wrong here, so are simply not liable.

davidglewis

AdrianC said:

davidglewis said:

the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them.

They would almost certainly have been an extra-cost option, not standard.
The typical UK BMW buyer does have a fetish for very low profile tyres on big alloys - standard 5-series estate fitment in the UK is currently 18" on SE, 19" on M-Sport, with 20" optional. In Germany, though, 17" are standard fit for what they call the "Basis" model, not offered here. Oh, and another side disadvantage of the very large rims? Speccing a "Basis" 520i from 17" to 20" increases CO2 from 126g/km to 131g/km, because of the higher rolling resistance of the tyres.

But that doesn't change the basic reality of the situation here. Very low profile tyres simply ARE far more at risk of damage from poor road surfaces. All that is being said is that there is a very easy way to reduce the risk of damage in a similar situation - drive a car with a less extreme tyre profile. It will also drastically reduce the cost of repairing the damage even if the situation does reoccur.

Highways England have done nothing wrong here, so are simply not liable.

so the car was used, so i didnt spec it - i dont recall anyone telling me that having these wheels puts me at a bigger risk - also i have had it 2 years and done 45000 miles without incident - this was an unusual incident and i simply cant understand how the pothole appeared so quick - i just dont think that HE noticed it on their inspections, but thanks for the helpful comment that i should just suck it up

AdrianC

I'm sure they didn't tell you. That doesn't mean it isn't a basic fact of life.

As for whether they were optional or standard - were others of similar nominal spec on 18" or 19"? And were the 20" one of the factors that put you towards this car? What age, engine, nominal spec (SE, M-Sport, etc) is it?

Oh, and, yes I would expect that pothole to be visible from at least 44m away with dip beam, even without streetlighting on that stretch. Looks easy enough to avoid with a small adjustment of line to one side or the other, too.

And, no, I am explicitly not saying you should just suck it up. You have three basic choices.

1. Launch a legal challenge against HE, alleging they've falsified their inspection records. Good luck. I hope you have more evidence than "Stands to reason, dunnit?". This has the potential to cost a LOT more than a new wheel and tyre.

2. Your insurance. Assuming they are aware of the increased risk and cost they were covering, relative to the standard-fitment they would have assumed if you told them the car was standard-spec.

3. Suck it up.

Your choice. Given this incident occurred in February, and HE denied responsibility in August, I suspect your available options may have narrowed, however, if you have not already claimed from your insurer or launched that legal action.

Sandtree

davidglewis said:

AdrianC said:

davidglewis said:

the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them.

They would almost certainly have been an extra-cost option, not standard.
The typical UK BMW buyer does have a fetish for very low profile tyres on big alloys - standard 5-series estate fitment in the UK is currently 18" on SE, 19" on M-Sport, with 20" optional. In Germany, though, 17" are standard fit for what they call the "Basis" model, not offered here. Oh, and another side disadvantage of the very large rims? Speccing a "Basis" 520i from 17" to 20" increases CO2 from 126g/km to 131g/km, because of the higher rolling resistance of the tyres.

But that doesn't change the basic reality of the situation here. Very low profile tyres simply ARE far more at risk of damage from poor road surfaces. All that is being said is that there is a very easy way to reduce the risk of damage in a similar situation - drive a car with a less extreme tyre profile. It will also drastically reduce the cost of repairing the damage even if the situation does reoccur.

Highways England have done nothing wrong here, so are simply not liable.

so the car was used, so i didnt spec it - i dont recall anyone telling me that having these wheels puts me at a bigger risk - also i have had it 2 years and done 45000 miles without incident - this was an unusual incident and i simply cant understand how the pothole appeared so quick - i just dont think that HE noticed it on their inspections, but thanks for the helpful comment that i should just suck it up

So you are saying you havent declared these optional extras to your insurers then? Depending on who your insurers are it may need to be declared irrespective when they were done (eg Admiral Group) or only if they were done after manufacture (eg Direct Line Group)

AdrianC

Sandtree said:
Depending on who your insurers are it may need to be declared irrespective when they were done (eg Admiral Group) or only if they were done after manufacture (eg Direct Line Group)

A good clarification, Sandtree.

Depending on the insurer, it may be worth running the VIN through one of the many online BMW spec decoder sites to see how BMW think it left the factory. They may have been a factory option - so covered by some insurers - or they may have been a dealer-fit or aftermarket change, prior to the OP's purchase, which would be very unlikely to be covered unless explicitly notified as a modification.

davidglewis

AdrianC said:

I'm sure they didn't tell you. That doesn't mean it isn't a basic fact of life.

As for whether they were optional or standard - were others of similar nominal spec on 18" or 19"? And were the 20" one of the factors that put you towards this car? What age, engine, nominal spec (SE, M-Sport, etc) is it?

Oh, and, yes I would expect that pothole to be visible from at least 44m away with dip beam, even without streetlighting on that stretch. Looks easy enough to avoid with a small adjustment of line to one side or the other, too.

And, no, I am explicitly not saying you should just suck it up. You have three basic choices.

1. Launch a legal challenge against HE, alleging they've falsified their inspection records. Good luck. I hope you have more evidence than "Stands to reason, dunnit?". This has the potential to cost a LOT more than a new wheel and tyre.

2. Your insurance. Assuming they are aware of the increased risk and cost they were covering, relative to the standard-fitment they would have assumed if you told them the car was standard-spec.

3. Suck it up.

Your choice. Given this incident occurred in February, and HE denied responsibility in August, I suspect your available options may have narrowed, however, if you have not already claimed from your insurer or launched that legal action.

i bought it as it was a good price and i liked the colour and as for spotting it from 44m, well you must have eaten a lot of carrots being able to see that at 6:20am in february.
i am not suggesting they falsified anything, just didnt spot the pothole - they dont provide a log stating that the road surface is fine for every metre of carriageway - they only report defects they are able to see. Option 2 is probably my only real chance of recovering the cost, subject to the excess of course and then suffer the increased premium - who knows what that might be - probably not worth it.
in reality, i dont have any other choice than to take your option 3.

davidglewis

Sandtree said:

davidglewis said:

AdrianC said:

davidglewis said:

the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them.

They would almost certainly have been an extra-cost option, not standard.
The typical UK BMW buyer does have a fetish for very low profile tyres on big alloys - standard 5-series estate fitment in the UK is currently 18" on SE, 19" on M-Sport, with 20" optional. In Germany, though, 17" are standard fit for what they call the "Basis" model, not offered here. Oh, and another side disadvantage of the very large rims? Speccing a "Basis" 520i from 17" to 20" increases CO2 from 126g/km to 131g/km, because of the higher rolling resistance of the tyres.

But that doesn't change the basic reality of the situation here. Very low profile tyres simply ARE far more at risk of damage from poor road surfaces. All that is being said is that there is a very easy way to reduce the risk of damage in a similar situation - drive a car with a less extreme tyre profile. It will also drastically reduce the cost of repairing the damage even if the situation does reoccur.

Highways England have done nothing wrong here, so are simply not liable.

so the car was used, so i didnt spec it - i dont recall anyone telling me that having these wheels puts me at a bigger risk - also i have had it 2 years and done 45000 miles without incident - this was an unusual incident and i simply cant understand how the pothole appeared so quick - i just dont think that HE noticed it on their inspections, but thanks for the helpful comment that i should just suck it up

So you are saying you havent declared these optional extras to your insurers then? Depending on who your insurers are it may need to be declared irrespective when they were done (eg Admiral Group) or only if they were done after manufacture (eg Direct Line Group)

i didnt say that i hadnt declared the options and yes they know all of the optional extras on the car

Biggus_Dickus

davidglewis said:

wow, i must say i am amazed where this thread has gone!...just to respond to some comments made some very helpful folk, the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them. I accept that i am in a almost privileged to be able to own a car like this, but I still dont see why having 20" wheels with run flats means that i have to suffer the consequences! i couldn't avoid the pothole - i didnt see it - it was 6:20am in February - it was dark. The hard shoulder wasn't available as it was closed due to roadworks and was limited to 50mph. I do have insurance, but i dont see why i should suffer from increased premiums that will no doubt happen if i made a claim when i was completely not at fault. Following an FOI request, HE has said that 4 other people suffered the same issue on this stretch at the same time. i have attached an image of the pothole that they have provided and my point i that i simply cant understand how this could have appeared within half a day in lane 3 where there are no HGV's or the like using it? My wish by starting this post was that someone might offer some helpful advice and maybe one of the other 4 people might read this and contact me and tell their story? i really didnt expect a load of abuse tbh.

https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

davidglewis

Biggus_Dickus said:

davidglewis said:

wow, i must say i am amazed where this thread has gone!...just to respond to some comments made some very helpful folk, the car is 5 series touring with standard factory fitted wheels and tyres. i didnt change them for these wheels - it came with them. I accept that i am in a almost privileged to be able to own a car like this, but I still dont see why having 20" wheels with run flats means that i have to suffer the consequences! i couldn't avoid the pothole - i didnt see it - it was 6:20am in February - it was dark. The hard shoulder wasn't available as it was closed due to roadworks and was limited to 50mph. I do have insurance, but i dont see why i should suffer from increased premiums that will no doubt happen if i made a claim when i was completely not at fault. Following an FOI request, HE has said that 4 other people suffered the same issue on this stretch at the same time. i have attached an image of the pothole that they have provided and my point i that i simply cant understand how this could have appeared within half a day in lane 3 where there are no HGV's or the like using it? My wish by starting this post was that someone might offer some helpful advice and maybe one of the other 4 people might read this and contact me and tell their story? i really didnt expect a load of abuse t

brilliant - i suspect some people just enjoy an argument - i just tend to try and spread the love. lol