Broken down on motorway - charged for the privilege?

[saaby93]

Beeb reporting some goings on here ( or a plug for their programme later)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19833237

Any PHers received a bill?

[whatmoretyres]

Not quite the same thing, but I clipped a road sign a while ago. Single post holding a directions sign to a lamp post. Hey, I broke it, gave my details to the council to make a claim (car was a write off anyway).

A few weeks went by and I was copied in on the council invoice - £1580! For one post on the verge? Rung up the council and spoke to the highways department. "oh that's a mistake, we'll re-do it" Came again a week later - £180

[blueg33]

I hit a barrier due to a slippery substannce on the road (this was the police comment, Ithought something had broken on the rear suspension, straight line at circa 40mph accelerating gently and wham 360 spin into barrier), I got a bill for the barrier of about £2500 on top of the £5k repair cost to the car

[xRIEx]

BBC said:

Sheila Kaur-Patel, who works as a BBC production manager, was shocked when she received an invoice for £3,000 for damage she had allegedly caused during a motorway incident.

She said: "When the bill arrived, I was devastated. The damages or so-called 'maintenance fees' are worth more than my car."

That's why you take are legally required to take out third party insurance.

BBC said:

A breakdown of the bill lists items such as a 7.5 tonne tipper hire, repairs to rails and £1,830.91 for the closure of the hard shoulder.

But Sheila insists she has no idea where the idea that any damage was caused has come from. She never saw the tipper or anyone from the company.

Why the fk would she see the tipper? Does she think they think she hit it, not that is was required to go and do the repairs after she hit the barrier? Or did she drive up and down the motorway to check that they were doing the repairs?


£1800 for closing the hard shoulder is a pisstake though.

[LC2]

Seems that it's now cheaper to crash on 'The Ring'

[saaby93]

xRIEx said:

BBC said:

Sheila Kaur-Patel, who works as a BBC production manager, was shocked

Missed that
I hope this isnt a BBC creates it's own story story

[Deva Link]

I suppose generally it's going to be an insurance paying the bill and the sender probably knows there's going to be an argument so they present a massive bill and then settle for a bit less.

I love the comment about clearing up an oil spill in 5 mins for £12.50 - just shows some people have absolutely no idea about the costs involved in running a business.

[xRIEx]

saaby93 said:

issed that
I hope this isnt a BBC creates it's own story story

That did occur to me while I was quoting.

[cambiker71]

A good friend of mine was charged nearly three thousand pounds for knocking over a lamp post, he didn't exactly knock it over but pulled it down with his diesel powered winch whilst trying to bump start the diahatsu fourtrak with a flat battery!

Edited by cambiker71 on Sunday 7th October 10:00

[Deva Link]

Seriously? A video of that would be hilarious.

[cambiker71]

Deva Link said:

Seriously? A video of that would be hilarious.

This was twenty odd years ago so none unfortunately, he was lucky not to kill himself because it landed right beside him! He reported it to the council as it was right opposite his dads house(where he lived) and thought if he didn't then a neighbour would, they agreed to take a really small amount each month until it was paid off, think he only finished paying a couple of years ago!

[tank slapper]

This seems like opportunistic profiteering. Why are contractors billing members of the public directly? If they are contracted by the local authority or the highways agency, then that is who their bill should go to. To me this is just a part of maintaining the road network. Motorists already pay a huge amount more in various taxes than is spent maintaining the roads, so there certainly should not be any additional bills.

[Deva Link]

tank slapper said:

Why are contractors billing members of the public directly? If they are contracted by the local authority or the highways agency, then that is who their bill should go to.

It's not an unusual situation - it's been the case for a long time that if someone steps in front of your car and you run them over, you get sent a bill for the ambulance.

[Citman]

My sister had a smash on a quiet residential street just over a year ago when a young lad driving rather too enthusiastically tried to squeeze past her in a gap that wasn't quite big enough. His fault and all dealt with through his insurance, but she was copied in on an invoice for just shy of 100 quid sent by the council to sweep up a very small amount of debris...

[saaby93]

xRIEx said:

saaby93 said:

Missed that
I hope this isnt a BBC creates it's own story story

That did occur to me while I was quoting.

shes just a motorist now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19861145
on radio 5 tonight 9pm

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 7th October 21:06

[Riley Blue]

Another of example of the public being fleeced due to inadequate monitoring of a public/private contract but the charge is for damage caused, not breaking down. Maybe mods could change title?

[DonkeyApple]

It makes sense in some regards for the person who caused the damage to pay for it. But:

The insurance industry has a proven track record of working in concert with third party inflated invoices. So we know categorically that even though some people here have no genuine concept of the real cost of things, there will be over inflated fees.

The more insidious reality is that this shows how private firms will be able to under bid for the maintenance contracts.

Just like with power supply and many other vital 'backbone' facilities there should be a govt specified price guidance from which over billing triggers a full audit as would regular peak billing.

[Hugo a Gogo]

"I would have turned my car around myself if I knew I was going to get charged almost £3,000."

brilliant

[AJI]

Not sure what the big issue is here.
Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?

If the motorist is asked to pay directly due to having no insurance then totally their fault.
If motorist has insurance then simply pass the claim on to them as UK insurers are required to provide 3rd party coverage.

I'm sure if the insurance company has any issues they are free to accept or decline the HA/conctractor charges request and the matter can go to court just like any other civil case.

[saaby93]

AJI said:

Not sure what the big issue is here.
Motorist causes damage/concern to HA asset which requires repair/inspection to be carried out. And some think that the taxpayer should fund this?

If the motorist is asked to pay directly due to having no insurance then totally their fault.
If motorist has insurance then simply pass the claim on to them as UK insurers are required to provide 3rd party coverage.

I'm sure if the insurance company has any issues they are free to accept or decline the HA/conctractor charges request and the matter can go to court just like any other civil case.

A couple of things came out of the programme
The maintenance contracts are for looking after a section of road. Within that contract will be making sure the road is clear so no lumps of concrete, tyre debris etc. The guys are already driving up and down so they shouldnt charge anyone for just being there.

The items were slightly interelated but if I have it right and it's still on iplayer

A motorcyclist hit a lump of concrete and flew over the central barrier. He was invoiced for damage to the central barrier which he hadnt done. He argued about it but the contractors got hold of his insurance and despite him arguing his insurers paid anyway.
Someone asked if the contarctors should be liable as theyre supposed to make sure there isnt a lump of concrete in the highway. Liable for what? The guy said he regularly checked that stretch of motorway and the central barrier was never replaced as it wasnt damaged.

Someone else pulled over onto the hard shoulder. The lads were passing by and closed lane1 while the RAC came out. She didnt ask them to close it. Later received a bill for closing the motorway. (Allegedly this is what theyre already paid to do in their contract)

Another time charges for replacing 8 sections of barrier when 3 were repaired

It looked like it was about the contractor believing as soon as insurance was involved they could inflate a charge to cover anything, even if they were already being paid to do that, or if nothing had happened

Amongst it all there did seem a few things that might be chargable i.e. outside the contract for maintaining the motorway