Legal Help Needed (taking LA to court?)
Discussion
Chaps,
Short story attached to this one, and I need some advice. Because ... I'm a bit confused!
Story is thus:
22nd April. My car is parked on my road, council plant a tree next to it. In doing so, they scatter it with grit and stones, and (badly) wipe them off. In the process, they scratch the paintwork and windscreen. No notification - I walk out of my house at around 6.00pm to find a mess, and a scratched car.
I take lots of good photos, call council informing them that I am not happy, am told to write in with details. I managed to polish the scratches out of the bonnet, get two quotes for replacement windscreen, and write to them on 29th May with copies of the photos and the windscreen quotes.
6th June, Get a standard "Thanks for your letter" letter, saying they will investigate.
16th July have heard nothing more, so write to them giving them two weeks to reply with a progress update, or I will take legal advice.
31st July, have heard nothing, so issue a claim on moneyclaim.gov.uk for the cheaper of the windscreen replacement quotes, plus court costs, and other costs (time wasted if I need to get the windscreen replaced, petrol etc.) Moneyclaim gives the council 14 days to reply.
19th August (more than 14 days later), they respond to the court with a defence, which is forwarded onto me. It has copies of the first letter I sent to the council (29th May), and of the letter they sent back to me (6th June) and their defence is (and I quote), "The above claimant alleges that the damage to his vehicle was caused by the workman's (sic) who attempted to wipe debris from his car. It is like (sic) that this matter will be referred onto the council contractors."
This is, to my eyes, no defence at all - just a vague notion that they may refer the claim onto someone else.
What do I do? I have until the 5th Sept to respond, and my choices are to drop it at this stage, or to take it a stage further, and ask for a court hearing.
If I do proceed to the court hearing, it will cost me money, and I have no idea of what their defence will be (if anything), or even if they will have got around to referring it to the contractors by then (how long does this sort of thing usually take to get to court? Days/weeks/months?)
I am confused as to what to do. I am reluctant to pursue it further until I have heard their side of the story (knowing what I am 'up against'), but I am also very reluctant to just drop it, as the bills for repair come to just shy of £700.
(Before you ask, I have spoken to my insurance broker, who said that if there is an identifiable culpable party then I can claim on my insurance for a new windscreen and they will pursue the third party, or I can claim directly from the third party. I can't just do the 'pay the £100 excess for new glass and get the insurance company to pay' in this scenario.)
Suggestions?
Oli.
Short story attached to this one, and I need some advice. Because ... I'm a bit confused!
Story is thus:
22nd April. My car is parked on my road, council plant a tree next to it. In doing so, they scatter it with grit and stones, and (badly) wipe them off. In the process, they scratch the paintwork and windscreen. No notification - I walk out of my house at around 6.00pm to find a mess, and a scratched car.
I take lots of good photos, call council informing them that I am not happy, am told to write in with details. I managed to polish the scratches out of the bonnet, get two quotes for replacement windscreen, and write to them on 29th May with copies of the photos and the windscreen quotes.
6th June, Get a standard "Thanks for your letter" letter, saying they will investigate.
16th July have heard nothing more, so write to them giving them two weeks to reply with a progress update, or I will take legal advice.
31st July, have heard nothing, so issue a claim on moneyclaim.gov.uk for the cheaper of the windscreen replacement quotes, plus court costs, and other costs (time wasted if I need to get the windscreen replaced, petrol etc.) Moneyclaim gives the council 14 days to reply.
19th August (more than 14 days later), they respond to the court with a defence, which is forwarded onto me. It has copies of the first letter I sent to the council (29th May), and of the letter they sent back to me (6th June) and their defence is (and I quote), "The above claimant alleges that the damage to his vehicle was caused by the workman's (sic) who attempted to wipe debris from his car. It is like (sic) that this matter will be referred onto the council contractors."
This is, to my eyes, no defence at all - just a vague notion that they may refer the claim onto someone else.
What do I do? I have until the 5th Sept to respond, and my choices are to drop it at this stage, or to take it a stage further, and ask for a court hearing.
If I do proceed to the court hearing, it will cost me money, and I have no idea of what their defence will be (if anything), or even if they will have got around to referring it to the contractors by then (how long does this sort of thing usually take to get to court? Days/weeks/months?)
I am confused as to what to do. I am reluctant to pursue it further until I have heard their side of the story (knowing what I am 'up against'), but I am also very reluctant to just drop it, as the bills for repair come to just shy of £700.
(Before you ask, I have spoken to my insurance broker, who said that if there is an identifiable culpable party then I can claim on my insurance for a new windscreen and they will pursue the third party, or I can claim directly from the third party. I can't just do the 'pay the £100 excess for new glass and get the insurance company to pay' in this scenario.)
Suggestions?
Oli.
Carry on with the Court, Oli. Its not like you're employing expensive sharks like Soovy, so your (and their) costs will be minimal (the point of the Moneyclaim process).
As far as you are concerned, your correspondence gave the council a chance to identify and pass on culpability to the third party contractors. They failed.
As you say, this is not a rebuttal of your claim, just some badly constructed sentences. I suspect the District Judge will see it in a similar way.
As far as you are concerned, your correspondence gave the council a chance to identify and pass on culpability to the third party contractors. They failed.
As you say, this is not a rebuttal of your claim, just some badly constructed sentences. I suspect the District Judge will see it in a similar way.
Phylet,
The suggestion seems to be in that direction (but not clearly so), but there is no indication that I should contact the 3rd party, or that they (LA) will even pass it on to them. (And, to be honest, the main reason I started the court process was because they were taking so damned long to sort it all out. And, let's be honest, general pissed-off-ness with the shower of incompetence that is the LBTH.)
Marcus,
Thanks. "Badly constructed" sentences seems like a very good way of putting it. Sage advice too. Appreciated.
Sleep Envy - ditto. Thanks.
:ReachesForForm,Ticks"TakeItToTheNextLevel"Box:
Oli.
The suggestion seems to be in that direction (but not clearly so), but there is no indication that I should contact the 3rd party, or that they (LA) will even pass it on to them. (And, to be honest, the main reason I started the court process was because they were taking so damned long to sort it all out. And, let's be honest, general pissed-off-ness with the shower of incompetence that is the LBTH.)
Marcus,
Thanks. "Badly constructed" sentences seems like a very good way of putting it. Sage advice too. Appreciated.
Sleep Envy - ditto. Thanks.
:ReachesForForm,Ticks"TakeItToTheNextLevel"Box:
Oli.
Councils usually have an official complaints process which normally gives them a kick up the arse because they will have a corporate complaints department / officer. I would use that. No response from that will normally mean you can use the LA Ombudsman.
I would continue with the claim - I suspect they won't even attend the hearing.
The fact that they replied late will not lead to automatic strike out of the claim.
I would continue with the claim - I suspect they won't even attend the hearing.
The fact that they replied late will not lead to automatic strike out of the claim.
lunarscope said:
jamoor said:
It's the contractors fault not the councils.
Balls !The Contractors did the work on behalf of the Council. The Council is responsible.
Also, if the Council didn't respond to the court within the allowed fourteen days surely they automatically lose the case.
If the Council wanted to pass the buck to their contractors, then surely their initial response to the OP should have indicated that they were doing so?
The council has employed an independent contractor, and therefore, in relation to damages such as you have described is not vicariously liable for the contractors actions.
If the contractor is internal to the council then the council would be vicariously liable.
Similarly if the activity had a significant hazardous aspect to it they may be liable for the contractors actions.
Your course of action is against the contractor and not the council.
If the contractor is internal to the council then the council would be vicariously liable.
Similarly if the activity had a significant hazardous aspect to it they may be liable for the contractors actions.
Your course of action is against the contractor and not the council.
Chaps,
More helpful comments, thanks.
I can see that the contractors probably are responsible for the damage, but as lunarscope said, it is the council who are responsible for maintaining the street, and the contractors will be working on their behalf. My 'contract' is with the council, therefore I hold the council responsible. If they want to defer that responsibility to someone else, they can, but they need to do this. If this means the council claims money back from the contractor as a result of the court case, so be it.
Bedders, you've lost me. You may be a latin scholar, but I'm just thick.
FPC - sadly, you are right; it seems that the '14 days to reply or you lose the case' doesn't apply (not sure why) and they are still allowed to 'defend' after 14 days. I sincerely hope that they don't attend the hearing - it'll make things much easier for me!
Greendog - legal protection with motor insurance; yes, I do have it. Didn't think of that! D'oh! (Would it have dented my NCD if I had used it?)
Meeja - your non-legal mind is thinking along the same lines as my non-legal mind.
Oli.
More helpful comments, thanks.
I can see that the contractors probably are responsible for the damage, but as lunarscope said, it is the council who are responsible for maintaining the street, and the contractors will be working on their behalf. My 'contract' is with the council, therefore I hold the council responsible. If they want to defer that responsibility to someone else, they can, but they need to do this. If this means the council claims money back from the contractor as a result of the court case, so be it.
Bedders, you've lost me. You may be a latin scholar, but I'm just thick.
FPC - sadly, you are right; it seems that the '14 days to reply or you lose the case' doesn't apply (not sure why) and they are still allowed to 'defend' after 14 days. I sincerely hope that they don't attend the hearing - it'll make things much easier for me!
Greendog - legal protection with motor insurance; yes, I do have it. Didn't think of that! D'oh! (Would it have dented my NCD if I had used it?)
Meeja - your non-legal mind is thinking along the same lines as my non-legal mind.
Oli.
randlemarcus said:
Carry on with the Court, Oli. Its not like you're employing expensive sharks like Soovy, so your (and their) costs will be minimal (the point of the Moneyclaim process).
As far as you are concerned, your correspondence gave the council a chance to identify and pass on culpability to the third party contractors. They failed.
As you say, this is not a rebuttal of your claim, just some badly constructed sentences. I suspect the District Judge will see it in a similar way.
This "expensive shark" thinks you continue. They'll pay up before the court date, in all probability.As far as you are concerned, your correspondence gave the council a chance to identify and pass on culpability to the third party contractors. They failed.
As you say, this is not a rebuttal of your claim, just some badly constructed sentences. I suspect the District Judge will see it in a similar way.
Do NOT drop it. You've got them where you want them. What chance have they got of mounting a decent defence when they pay so badly that they can't even find someone who can conjugate a sentence correctly.
zcacogp said:
I can see that the contractors probably are responsible for the damage...
The contractor is liable for the damage. Not the council.zcacogp said:
...but as lunarscope said, it is the council who are responsible for maintaining the street, and the contractors will be working on their behalf.
The contracor is an 'independent contractor' and the council is therefore not liable for its actions UNLESS there is a particularly hazardous element to the works, which there is not here.zcacogp said:
My 'contract' is with the council, therefore I hold the council responsible.
You dont have a contract with the council.Expensive Shark, thanks. As a fellow resident of LBTH, I suspect you already know the quality of the staff they employ; regular reminders to breathe are broadcast on the office PA system, I believe. I shall indeed proceed with the case, encouraged by the comments on here.
Swilly, Interesting comments, thanks. Out of interest, what would you suggest I should do? I don't know who the contractors are, and the council has spent the last 4 months failing to suggest I should do anything other than pursue the claim with them - indeed, their response to the moneyclaim would have been an ideal opportunity for them to do so, and again they failed.
You are correct in that I do not have a formal written contract with the council, hence my use of inverted commas. However, I pay council tax, and in turn they are responsible for maintaining the street and the trees within it; this is what I meant by 'contract'. As a part of this, they paid for the planting of the new tree, which was the process in which my car was damaged. I expect them to exercise due care and attention when performing their work, and to ensure that due care and attention is exercised by their contractors when they subcontract work. If I claim from them, they can further claim from their subcontractor, if they so wish (and indeed as a council tax payer, I would encourage them to do so.)
I'm not knocking your point of view, I'm keen to hear what you would suggest. (Your profile says you are a Civil Engineer; you probably know a whole load more about this than I do.)
Oli.
Swilly, Interesting comments, thanks. Out of interest, what would you suggest I should do? I don't know who the contractors are, and the council has spent the last 4 months failing to suggest I should do anything other than pursue the claim with them - indeed, their response to the moneyclaim would have been an ideal opportunity for them to do so, and again they failed.
You are correct in that I do not have a formal written contract with the council, hence my use of inverted commas. However, I pay council tax, and in turn they are responsible for maintaining the street and the trees within it; this is what I meant by 'contract'. As a part of this, they paid for the planting of the new tree, which was the process in which my car was damaged. I expect them to exercise due care and attention when performing their work, and to ensure that due care and attention is exercised by their contractors when they subcontract work. If I claim from them, they can further claim from their subcontractor, if they so wish (and indeed as a council tax payer, I would encourage them to do so.)
I'm not knocking your point of view, I'm keen to hear what you would suggest. (Your profile says you are a Civil Engineer; you probably know a whole load more about this than I do.)
Oli.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
An independent contractor, an agent and an employee are different things.Vicarious liability and Qui facit per alium, facit per se apply to the agent and employee situations but does not apply to an independent contractor (unless in specific circumstances such as those already mentioned eg particular hazardous aspects to the work)
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff