Council damage car and win case in court
Discussion
http://bbc.in/2qXiDtT
Long story short:
Council employee damages a car with a mower. Employee informs the car owner about the incident and admits responsibility. Council refuse to pay for the damage and win the case in court.
I find this a little strange. Do the council not have insurance to cover any damage that might happen to property while they go about their business?
I know my business insurance covers me for any damage I may cause to other people's property while I'm working.
I appreciate there will be factors such as negligence, but this seems awfully mean of the council, especially as they spent more defending it than paying out.
Long story short:
Council employee damages a car with a mower. Employee informs the car owner about the incident and admits responsibility. Council refuse to pay for the damage and win the case in court.
I find this a little strange. Do the council not have insurance to cover any damage that might happen to property while they go about their business?
I know my business insurance covers me for any damage I may cause to other people's property while I'm working.
I appreciate there will be factors such as negligence, but this seems awfully mean of the council, especially as they spent more defending it than paying out.
I guess the issue is were the council, or their employee, negligent.
I think it is unreasonable for the council to inspect every verge for lose stones, so they weren't negligent.
However, if they wanted to preserve tax payers funds they could have paid up as a gesture of goodwill which would have cost less than the lawyers.
I think it is unreasonable for the council to inspect every verge for lose stones, so they weren't negligent.
However, if they wanted to preserve tax payers funds they could have paid up as a gesture of goodwill which would have cost less than the lawyers.
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but in my opinion it's the right decision. If you get a stone chip on your windscreen while driving would you try and claim the cost from someone else (assuming you somehow had evidence of which vehicle was responsible)?
Agree it's a colossal waste of council money, but if they hadn't defended then they'd open themselves up to all sorts of chancers trying their luck. Result would be council reduces the frequency the grass is cut (cue complaints) or concretes over all the grass verges to avoid a repeat (cue complaints).
Car owner should have done what most people do and gone through insurance. PITA but that's life.
Agree it's a colossal waste of council money, but if they hadn't defended then they'd open themselves up to all sorts of chancers trying their luck. Result would be council reduces the frequency the grass is cut (cue complaints) or concretes over all the grass verges to avoid a repeat (cue complaints).
Car owner should have done what most people do and gone through insurance. PITA but that's life.
Zetec-S said:
Agree it's a colossal waste of council money, but if they hadn't defended then they'd open themselves up to all sorts of chancers trying their luck. Result would be council reduces the frequency the grass is cut (cue complaints) or concretes over all the grass verges to avoid a repeat (cue complaints).
It only cost her £65 to lodge the claim so they ain't going to prevent a queue of future claims with precedence, they'll still have to defend every one. Best outcome they can hope for is refuting the employees admission of liability (they don't have the power to admit liability) in the first instance then making an economic judgement about cost of defence in each future case if that doesn't prevent a summons. Zetec-S said:
I'm sure I'll be flamed for this, but in my opinion it's the right decision. If you get a stone chip on your windscreen while driving would you try and claim the cost from someone else (assuming you somehow had evidence of which vehicle was responsible)?
Agree it's a colossal waste of council money, but if they hadn't defended then they'd open themselves up to all sorts of chancers trying their luck. Result would be council reduces the frequency the grass is cut (cue complaints) or concretes over all the grass verges to avoid a repeat (cue complaints).
Car owner should have done what most people do and gone through insurance. PITA but that's life.
At first I read the thread title and thought "fAgree it's a colossal waste of council money, but if they hadn't defended then they'd open themselves up to all sorts of chancers trying their luck. Result would be council reduces the frequency the grass is cut (cue complaints) or concretes over all the grass verges to avoid a repeat (cue complaints).
Car owner should have done what most people do and gone through insurance. PITA but that's life.
king council" but after reading the article I can't say I can argue with your post.It is a massive waste of council money though, they COULD have quietly settled it for £200 and been done with it. I understand the precedent but if they hadn't dragged it through court it wouldn't have even made the news.
ging84 said:
what is being suggested here?
the public sector should just pay out to anyone who has a claim only worth a few hundred £ regardless of it's merits
Can no one see potential problems with that?
No.the public sector should just pay out to anyone who has a claim only worth a few hundred £ regardless of it's merits
Can no one see potential problems with that?
The damage was clearly caused by the councils lawnmower. Although not legally responsible it is not unreasonable for them to compensate the innocent victim of the accident even though there was not legal negligence.
It's about treating people fairly and not giving them the finger.
IMO it's negligent of the mower to do this. I have a verge alongside a lane and wouldn't dream of mowing it with a car parked nearby, there's always the risk of something flying. I even stop mowing when cars pass.
It's not hard and doesn't take much thought but it seems to have been beyond this council employee.
It's not hard and doesn't take much thought but it seems to have been beyond this council employee.
REALIST123 said:
IMO it's negligent of the mower to do this. I have a verge alongside a lane and wouldn't dream of mowing it with a car parked nearby, there's always the risk of something flying. I even stop mowing when cars pass.
It's not hard and doesn't take much thought but it seems to have been beyond this council employee.
If they did that, the grass would never get cut.......It's not hard and doesn't take much thought but it seems to have been beyond this council employee.
My old force, in an attempt to save money, decided on a threshold over which the force would pay out for any claim against them. An offender, wanted on warrant for burglaries and having committed another crime, ran off pursued by a police officer. A car tried to cut him off before he came to mummy's house and arrived just in time to have the door slammed in their face.
The door was eased open with minor damage to the frame. The police took photographs of the damage to show how minor it was and submitted the file. The force paid out a sum 1p below the threshold. The estimate was farcical and fraudulent.
I disputed the payout, taking it as far as the force's solicitors, but was slapped down. They showed proof of how much cheaper the claims costs were since the implementation of the threshold.
Is it best to reward offenders for choosing a brief who will organise such claims (the brief was reported to his association of similar matters and he got severely told off), or should the police husband resources?
I have a view on the matter but then I wasn't in charge of the budget.
In fact, I could see the point. When the size of major crime enquiries were being reduced due to costs, an SIO might take it amiss that money was being wasted to 'save' less money that it cost.
The door was eased open with minor damage to the frame. The police took photographs of the damage to show how minor it was and submitted the file. The force paid out a sum 1p below the threshold. The estimate was farcical and fraudulent.
I disputed the payout, taking it as far as the force's solicitors, but was slapped down. They showed proof of how much cheaper the claims costs were since the implementation of the threshold.
Is it best to reward offenders for choosing a brief who will organise such claims (the brief was reported to his association of similar matters and he got severely told off), or should the police husband resources?
I have a view on the matter but then I wasn't in charge of the budget.
In fact, I could see the point. When the size of major crime enquiries were being reduced due to costs, an SIO might take it amiss that money was being wasted to 'save' less money that it cost.
PurpleMoonlight said:
No.
The damage was clearly caused by the councils lawnmower. Although not legally responsible it is not unreasonable for them to compensate the innocent victim of the accident even though there was not legal negligence.
It's about treating people fairly and not giving them the finger.
Exactly.The damage was clearly caused by the councils lawnmower. Although not legally responsible it is not unreasonable for them to compensate the innocent victim of the accident even though there was not legal negligence.
It's about treating people fairly and not giving them the finger.
I appreciate the legalities of it, I just find it difficult to swallow that the council would damage someone's personal properly whilst going about their business, admit it was their fault, then simply 'give them finger' instead of being decent people and paying out £200.
If I damaged someone's property whilst at work, I would certainly compensate them fairly rather than just try to fob them off and hide behind a barrister.
This is typical council mentality. We had a claim against the council over a compulsory purchase order and loss of trade whilst the works were going on. They spent double the cost of the claim in legal expenses and took 6 years to sort it all out. Needless to say I am not very fond of the council workers, it seemed every time we tried contacting them for an update either someone was off sick or on Holiday.
I also thought that a precedent could not be set as a small claims court.
Chris
I also thought that a precedent could not be set as a small claims court.
Chris
The council lawyer was better than hers getting the judge to believe they weren't negligent.
It didn't matter that they did risk assessments, if the risk assessments didn't identify the risk of shooting stones into the air then they weren't done right so they were negligent. If they did identify the risk and the operative went ahead anyway then they're still negligent.
There are lots of ways to cut grass without sending stones flying through the air, just some are more expensive and time consuming than others. I suspect the council knew the risks but decided to take the gamble and deal with the consequences if something went wrong. It did but they dodged the consequences too. Just lucky I suppose that the car was parked and it didn't go through the front windscreen and hit the driver.
It didn't matter that they did risk assessments, if the risk assessments didn't identify the risk of shooting stones into the air then they weren't done right so they were negligent. If they did identify the risk and the operative went ahead anyway then they're still negligent.
There are lots of ways to cut grass without sending stones flying through the air, just some are more expensive and time consuming than others. I suspect the council knew the risks but decided to take the gamble and deal with the consequences if something went wrong. It did but they dodged the consequences too. Just lucky I suppose that the car was parked and it didn't go through the front windscreen and hit the driver.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff