Who is responsible for "road furniture"?
Discussion
While trying to avoid a series of three sizeable pot-holes, I managed to hit the kerb of a centre reserve, that should have had an illuminated bollard on it (it didn' have any bollard, as according to some locals, it has been knocked down many times by articulated trucks using a residential road to access an industrial estate)
I burst two tyres, and dented the rims of both offside wheels. Total bill was around £500, for which I've submitted a claim tot he local highways department.
After more than two months, the highways department have repleid to say that its not their responsibility - it's down to E.ON, who are responsible for the illuminated bollard (and they've even admitted that E.ON knew about it because it has been reported previously)
My question is - is it actually E.ON's responsiblity, or does liabilty still lie with the highways department, as they are ultimately responsible, even if they choose to sub-contract certain aspects to other bodies?
My gut feeling is they they're trying to fob me off to E.ON, who will say "nowt to do with us - we're just the sub-contractor"
Thoughts?
I burst two tyres, and dented the rims of both offside wheels. Total bill was around £500, for which I've submitted a claim tot he local highways department.
After more than two months, the highways department have repleid to say that its not their responsibility - it's down to E.ON, who are responsible for the illuminated bollard (and they've even admitted that E.ON knew about it because it has been reported previously)
My question is - is it actually E.ON's responsiblity, or does liabilty still lie with the highways department, as they are ultimately responsible, even if they choose to sub-contract certain aspects to other bodies?
My gut feeling is they they're trying to fob me off to E.ON, who will say "nowt to do with us - we're just the sub-contractor"
Thoughts?
Nigel_O said:
(it didn' have any bollard, as according to some locals, it has been knocked down many times by articulated trucks using a residential road to access an industrial estate)
Truck drivers just helping out the local Council, as many Councils are removing bollards because of "their over provision can have an unduly negative impact on streetscape and energy consumption"?Apparently "there is no direct requirement for a traffic bollard or a traffic sign to be used, and there will be times when either or both can be reasonably omitted".
Edited by J__Wood on Tuesday 5th October 19:05
Durzel said:
Do you have a Google Maps location for this?
I'm struggling to understand how you needed illumination to see a kerb, I'll be honest.
It was probably like this one, completely invisible in the dark…I'm struggling to understand how you needed illumination to see a kerb, I'll be honest.
Marsden traffic island
I think this is either going nowhere or it will take longer than it is worth.
I would have photographed the potholes and gone in that route.
For the sake of £500 (although not a sum to be sneezed at) I would weigh up the time and effort needed to push this against just moving on and slowing down for any future potholes.
I would have photographed the potholes and gone in that route.
For the sake of £500 (although not a sum to be sneezed at) I would weigh up the time and effort needed to push this against just moving on and slowing down for any future potholes.
gazza285 said:
Durzel said:
Do you have a Google Maps location for this?
I'm struggling to understand how you needed illumination to see a kerb, I'll be honest.
It was probably like this one, completely invisible in the dark…I'm struggling to understand how you needed illumination to see a kerb, I'll be honest.
Marsden traffic island
GranpaB said:
so similar to the OP, not concentrating on where they were going.
Thanks for that insight.... I wasn't looking for a remote analysis of my driving prowess, just an answer about where the liability lies for the missing bollard.However, to sate the terminally inquisitive - yes, I probably should have spotted the kerb, but I was distracted by trying to avoid the pot holes. Had the centre refuge had a bollard on it, I would definitely have seen it. For what it's worth, I did see the kerb, but only a second or so before I hit it.
Google Maps screen-grab.
I was turning right into the side road from the position of the camera car. I was avoiding the three consecutive pot-holes in the image and I chose to straddle them, rather than go to the left of them. What you can't see from the screen-grab is that the road falls away by a few inches after the white lines of the junction. Clearly the photo is taken from a camera perched a foot or two above the roof line of a people-carrier type vehicle. From the driver's seat of an Alfa GT, the centre refuge can't be seen until you get quite close. Had there been a bollard on the refuge, I would have seen it before I even started to turn and I would have gone round the pot-holes to the left.
OK - now we've had a forensic analysis, can anyone tell me whether it's E.ON or the highways department that's ultimately liable for the lack of the bollard? FWIW, I know £500 isn't a vast amount, although it would have beena lot higher if the wheels weren't repairable). I'm not going to be chucking huge resources at this - just an attempt to recover some costs.
I've worked in local authorities, and do recall being involved in a tender to replace street furniture, including lit items.
I recall a third party did have responsibility for cataloguing them, and disconnecting the supply if we removed them, and am pretty sure they did own them.
Certainly with bus shelters it was standard practice for jcdeceaux etc to provide and run them (and keep the revenue from advertising)
The thing I'm struggling with is: what have Eon said?
If this is some big ruse to confound and confuse you by the council, it would be pretty silly if eon turn round and say nothing to do with us.
I get that councils sometimes have error in how things are processed, but local authorities don't generally just make stuff up in letters to fob people off. The local government ombudsman would not look kindly on that I think.
Hth
Ian
I recall a third party did have responsibility for cataloguing them, and disconnecting the supply if we removed them, and am pretty sure they did own them.
Certainly with bus shelters it was standard practice for jcdeceaux etc to provide and run them (and keep the revenue from advertising)
The thing I'm struggling with is: what have Eon said?
If this is some big ruse to confound and confuse you by the council, it would be pretty silly if eon turn round and say nothing to do with us.
I get that councils sometimes have error in how things are processed, but local authorities don't generally just make stuff up in letters to fob people off. The local government ombudsman would not look kindly on that I think.
Hth
Ian
No way you can/should hit that kerb unless you’re on the wrong side of the carriageway.
So you saw potholes below ground level beyond the end of your bonnet, but missed the raise kerb to the right out of your drivers window?
Do you routinely run over hedgehogs? What happened if a small child had fallen in the road in place of the traffic island and was laying there?
You’re just looking for someone else to blame for a poor manoeuvre, and the missing bollard is a convenient excuse.
If visibility from your car is a problem because it’s low, perhaps a booster seat or an alternative car/SUV/4x4 with an elevated position might be better for your needs.
So you saw potholes below ground level beyond the end of your bonnet, but missed the raise kerb to the right out of your drivers window?
Do you routinely run over hedgehogs? What happened if a small child had fallen in the road in place of the traffic island and was laying there?
You’re just looking for someone else to blame for a poor manoeuvre, and the missing bollard is a convenient excuse.
If visibility from your car is a problem because it’s low, perhaps a booster seat or an alternative car/SUV/4x4 with an elevated position might be better for your needs.
Thanks Ian
E.ON haven't said anything yet - I've had a reply from the highways department saying it's E.ON's responsibility to maintain the bollards.
However, I'm of the opinion that although, the highways department have sub-contracted the work to install and maintain bollards, the ultimate liability still remains with the highways department.
Many years ago, I calaimed against the highways department for significant paintwork damage caused by a newly-laid road surface breaking up and large chunks of gravel / chippings being flung around. The highways department claimed it was the responsibility of the road contractor, but after a bit of "negotiation" the highways department admitted that they were responsible for their subcontractors.
E.ON haven't said anything yet - I've had a reply from the highways department saying it's E.ON's responsibility to maintain the bollards.
However, I'm of the opinion that although, the highways department have sub-contracted the work to install and maintain bollards, the ultimate liability still remains with the highways department.
Many years ago, I calaimed against the highways department for significant paintwork damage caused by a newly-laid road surface breaking up and large chunks of gravel / chippings being flung around. The highways department claimed it was the responsibility of the road contractor, but after a bit of "negotiation" the highways department admitted that they were responsible for their subcontractors.
Nigel_O said:
Thanks for that insight.... I wasn't looking for a remote analysis of my driving prowess, just an answer about where the liability lies for the missing bollard.
However, to sate the terminally inquisitive - yes, I probably should have spotted the kerb, but I was distracted by trying to avoid the pot holes. Had the centre refuge had a bollard on it, I would definitely have seen it. For what it's worth, I did see the kerb, but only a second or so before I hit it.
Google Maps screen-grab.
I was turning right into the side road from the position of the camera car. I was avoiding the three consecutive pot-holes in the image and I chose to straddle them, rather than go to the left of them. What you can't see from the screen-grab is that the road falls away by a few inches after the white lines of the junction. Clearly the photo is taken from a camera perched a foot or two above the roof line of a people-carrier type vehicle. From the driver's seat of an Alfa GT, the centre refuge can't be seen until you get quite close. Had there been a bollard on the refuge, I would have seen it before I even started to turn and I would have gone round the pot-holes to the left.
OK - now we've had a forensic analysis, can anyone tell me whether it's E.ON or the highways department that's ultimately liable for the lack of the bollard? FWIW, I know £500 isn't a vast amount, although it would have beena lot higher if the wheels weren't repairable). I'm not going to be chucking huge resources at this - just an attempt to recover some costs.
From the picture it would look like Driving without due care and attention.However, to sate the terminally inquisitive - yes, I probably should have spotted the kerb, but I was distracted by trying to avoid the pot holes. Had the centre refuge had a bollard on it, I would definitely have seen it. For what it's worth, I did see the kerb, but only a second or so before I hit it.
Google Maps screen-grab.
I was turning right into the side road from the position of the camera car. I was avoiding the three consecutive pot-holes in the image and I chose to straddle them, rather than go to the left of them. What you can't see from the screen-grab is that the road falls away by a few inches after the white lines of the junction. Clearly the photo is taken from a camera perched a foot or two above the roof line of a people-carrier type vehicle. From the driver's seat of an Alfa GT, the centre refuge can't be seen until you get quite close. Had there been a bollard on the refuge, I would have seen it before I even started to turn and I would have gone round the pot-holes to the left.
OK - now we've had a forensic analysis, can anyone tell me whether it's E.ON or the highways department that's ultimately liable for the lack of the bollard? FWIW, I know £500 isn't a vast amount, although it would have beena lot higher if the wheels weren't repairable). I'm not going to be chucking huge resources at this - just an attempt to recover some costs.
The potholes could be avoided if the road to the left side of them is clear or drive slowly through them.
To turn into the junction with the vehicle on the correct side of the road with good road positioning would not constitute the requirement of a road bollard unless you were driving in the dark with no lights on.
OP it appears you hit the curb for whatever reason and now are looking to claim for vehicle damage for your poor standard of driving from someone else.
There is no way anyone would pay you for the lack of road furniture.
J__Wood said:
Nigel_O said:
(it didn' have any bollard, as according to some locals, it has been knocked down many times by articulated trucks using a residential road to access an industrial estate)
Truck drivers just helping out the local Council, as many Councils are removing bollards because of "their over provision can have an unduly negative impact on streetscape and energy consumption"?Apparently "there is no direct requirement for a traffic bollard or a traffic sign to be used, and there will be times when either or both can be reasonably omitted".
]
If you saw the pothole, I'm curious why you didn't see the island. If the choice was hit the pothole or hit the island, I'd go for braking hard and going over the pothole. If the pothole damages your car you may be sucessful in claiming, and certainly have a better chance of a sucessful claim than saying you crashed into a kerb as it didn't have a lit bollard on it, which isn't required. The LA may have contracted the work to Eon which could result in some joint liability for works not being completed, but I think this is one you should probably chalk up to experience.
I don't know the answer but if you want an opinion, I can't see how anyone other than the council or highways authority can be responsible to the public for the provision of road furniture. They may well sub-contract various pieces but that doesn't make the sub-contractor liable to the public directly.
TheDrownedApe said:
As usual the PH massive ignore the question and resort to this bulls
t instead.
But it is relevant, the OP is seeking to claim from somebody for damage to his car. All some are saying is they don't really see why it is anybody's fault but the OP's. t instead. Or are you saying that whatever somebody posts shouldn't be challenged?
I'm disappointed..... I'm NOT disappointed that a significant majority PH posters can't actually answer a simple question without resorting to diversion and attack. I'm actually disappointed in myself for not anticipating it would happen.
For those that took the time to provide an answer to my question - thank you.
For those that took even more time to question my motives, my driving competence or my eyesight, I can't help but wonder why you found it impossible to stick to the brief, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, then crack on.
FFS - how did PH end up like this?
For those that took the time to provide an answer to my question - thank you.
For those that took even more time to question my motives, my driving competence or my eyesight, I can't help but wonder why you found it impossible to stick to the brief, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, then crack on.
FFS - how did PH end up like this?
Nigel_O said:
I'm disappointed..... I'm NOT disappointed that a significant majority PH posters can't actually answer a simple question without resorting to diversion and attack. I'm actually disappointed in myself for not anticipating it would happen.
For those that took the time to provide an answer to my question - thank you.
For those that took even more time to question my motives, my driving competence or my eyesight, I can't help but wonder why you found it impossible to stick to the brief, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, then crack on.
FFS - how did PH end up like this?
I imagine a lot of them as this guyFor those that took the time to provide an answer to my question - thank you.
For those that took even more time to question my motives, my driving competence or my eyesight, I can't help but wonder why you found it impossible to stick to the brief, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, then crack on.
FFS - how did PH end up like this?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff