Pothole cliam receipts?

nem39esis

Ive made a claim to cardiff council for damage to my tyre and wheel from a pothole. I sent pictures and quotations from the garage for replacement/repair which is close to £1000. 

They have validated the claim and despite sending proof of tyre purchase etc dates and everything under the sun over several months,  they now are saying they wont pay unless i provide them with receipts that ive paid to have the repairs done.

I cant afford to be out of pocket by  £1000 on this and wait for them to maybe pay back.

This doesn't feel right and a previous claim many years ago i dont recall having to pay first.

The guidance notes states nothing about receipts and having to have repairs done before making a claim.  This has been ongoing for over year now with them typically taking 2-3 weeks to respond to any email. 

What is correct? should i file a small claims?

PS for info the council are using a company called Gallagher Bassett to manage the claim.

DullGreyGuy

They presumably want to ensure you are actually going to be replacing the tyres with the ones you have sent a quote for rather than getting a quote for the most expensive tyres you can find and will actually be buying some cheap budget brand ones and pocketing the difference. 

nem39esis

DullGreyGuy said:

They presumably want to ensure you are actually going to be replacing the tyres with the ones you have sent a quote for rather than getting a quote for the most expensive tyres you can find and will actually be buying some cheap budget brand ones and pocketing the difference. 

they had a like for like quote, as to my knowledge its supposed to put you back in the same position as you were. So the tyres and wheel are from the same manufacturer and the exact same model etc.

DullGreyGuy

nem39esis said:

DullGreyGuy said:

They presumably want to ensure you are actually going to be replacing the tyres with the ones you have sent a quote for rather than getting a quote for the most expensive tyres you can find and will actually be buying some cheap budget brand ones and pocketing the difference. 

they had a like for like quote, as to my knowledge its supposed to put you back in the same position as you were. So the tyres and wheel are from the same manufacturer and the exact same model etc.

How old were the tyres before the accident?

Was the quote for part worn tyres?

Legally, if they are liable, they are supposed to pay you the depreciation the vehicle sustained from having used but functional tyres to now having burst tyres. As thats hard to judge the cost of repair is used as a proxy. In principle to buy you brand new tyres is betterment and goes beyond what is required.

nem39esis

DullGreyGuy said:

nem39esis said:

DullGreyGuy said:

They presumably want to ensure you are actually going to be replacing the tyres with the ones you have sent a quote for rather than getting a quote for the most expensive tyres you can find and will actually be buying some cheap budget brand ones and pocketing the difference. 

they had a like for like quote, as to my knowledge its supposed to put you back in the same position as you were. So the tyres and wheel are from the same manufacturer and the exact same model etc.

How old were the tyres before the accident?

Was the quote for part worn tyres?

Legally, if they are liable, they are supposed to pay you the depreciation the vehicle sustained from having used but functional tyres to now having burst tyres. As thats hard to judge the cost of repair is used as a proxy. In principle to buy you brand new tyres is betterment and goes beyond what is required.

so i had the wheel already replaced prior due to another pothole and tyres same time (two tires actually) so they were under a year old. So depreciation wise id say negligible, tyre maybe 10% but wheel definitely as new. So id expect them to make an offer of slightly less but the issue is them expecting me to fork out and pay for it first, which i think is not correct and certainly not what ive come across anyone having to do in the past. 

DullGreyGuy

nem39esis said:

DullGreyGuy said:

nem39esis said:

DullGreyGuy said:

They presumably want to ensure you are actually going to be replacing the tyres with the ones you have sent a quote for rather than getting a quote for the most expensive tyres you can find and will actually be buying some cheap budget brand ones and pocketing the difference. 

they had a like for like quote, as to my knowledge its supposed to put you back in the same position as you were. So the tyres and wheel are from the same manufacturer and the exact same model etc.

How old were the tyres before the accident?

Was the quote for part worn tyres?

Legally, if they are liable, they are supposed to pay you the depreciation the vehicle sustained from having used but functional tyres to now having burst tyres. As thats hard to judge the cost of repair is used as a proxy. In principle to buy you brand new tyres is betterment and goes beyond what is required.

so i had the wheel already replaced prior due to another pothole and tyres same time (two tires actually) so they were under a year old. So depreciation wise id say negligible, tyre maybe 10% but wheel definitely as new. So id expect them to make an offer of slightly less but the issue is them expecting me to fork out and pay for it first, which i think is not correct and certainly not what ive come across anyone having to do in the past. 

If we had a third party wanting a cash in lieu settlement, which is effectively what you are asking for. We would pay the reasonable cost of repair net of VAT. If the claimant subsequently returned with a paid invoice for more than the CiL settlement we would pay the difference up to the VAT on the original quote. 

I'm confused though, you say its several months since the incident but its not been repaired yet... so the car is sitting unused awaiting the replacement?

Bigphil1474

So you've had a car parked up for a year awaiting repair because you don't want to pay for it before getting your money from the council? I would have thought that if the council is liable it's reasonable for them to recompense you for the outlay you have made to get your car back to how it was. As you haven't made an outlay yet, then I wouldn't be paying you either. Get it fixed, give them the receipt, bank their money?

nem39esis

Spoke with the council themselves, they said no it’s very unusual and not the way things work as nobody is expected to get repairs done before making a claim and they only require quotations to justify it.   They are escalating to get this sorted asap and have apologised. 

I don’t get what others are saying really, had I taken them to court I’d not have to get the works done first either and don’t see why I should yet, should be when I want to and at a time convenient to me. At the end of the day they damaged my vehicle through negligence 

DE_612183

nem39esis said:

Spoke with the council themselves, they said no it’s very unusual and not the way things work as nobody is expected to get repairs done before making a claim and they only require quotations to justify it.   They are escalating to get this sorted asap and have apologised. 

I don’t get what others are saying really, had I taken them to court I’d not have to get the works done first either and don’t see why I should yet, should be when I want to and at a time convenient to me. At the end of the day they damaged my vehicle through negligence 

I think you are quite lucky to get them to pay at all - a lot of councils argue that if you went over a pothole you were "driving without due care and attention"....

nem39esis

lol in this instance it was impossible to avoid as stretched across the entire width of the road- basically a trench! I’m sure there were 1000s who fell victim like me, and given that the council always reject every claim to start I’d imagine many never got what was owed.