Jump to content

Freaky Roadster

Basic Member
  • Posts

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Freaky Roadster

  1. Basically they are going to try to prove that they weren't negligent in the upkeep of the road. It sounds like they are trying to prove to themselves that the road has been inspected on a regular enough basis and at the time , no faults were found. I think section 58 comes in when no one has reported a defect before the incident, if it had been reported and no repairs were carried out then they would have been at fault. Now it comes down to if they have been negligent in their duty to repair and maintain a safe road surface. 58 Special defence in action against a highway authority for damages for non-repair of highway. (1)In an action against a highway authority in respect of damage resulting from their failure to maintain a highway maintainable at the public expense it is a defence (without prejudice to any other defence or the application of the law relating to contributory negligence) to prove that the authority had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic. (2)For the purposes of a defence under subsection (1) above, the court shall in particular have regard to the following matters:— (a)the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it; (b)the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic; ©the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway; (d)whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway; (e)where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed; but for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions. (3)This section binds the Crown.
  2. Finally had a letter of acknowledgement today, looks like they'll try to hide behind section 58 of the 1980's Highways Act
  3. Physics FAIL ! Trouble is that the national speed limit on single carriageways is 60 MPH, so the equivalent crash can happen anytime whilst both drivers are observing the speed limit. Although one numpty must be overtaking blind.
  4. Yup looks good. Looks like the Hornet up front, probably H driving.
  5. Surrey typically does not use bitumen seal around the edge of a repair due to it being too dangerous and slippery for motorbikes Must be zero friction stuff that imparts an invisible force at 90º to the direction of travel especially when it's about an inch wide. At the same time they will cut expansion joints across a whole road and fill it with this stuff Whether the winter is bad or not, if bitumen isn't used then the hole will open up within a year or less. So, ER, is your council spending the extra 10p or just wasting the £100 filling each hole? Tony, read his thread and was shocked at the incident but totally NOT surprised by the insurance company's behaviour. Anything to wiggle out of a pay out. P>s. Apologies for the f-word earlier
  6. Haven't got a clue, no acknowledgement yet that they've even received the claim I think they state it takes 90 days, lazy f***s, to sort claims. Made a claim a couple of years ago when a stone hit my car, parked on drive way, putting a 1" dent in the door. The stone was actually part of the roads' sub structure and about 2" x 1.5". Had the car in for other body work after an ice incident and had the door sorted at the same time. After 90 days from submitting the claim, I told the council that I've had the dent repaired. their reply, "Okay, we'll forward a cheque for the amount claimed" , that was £235 thank you very much. No argument, no wheedling excuses or wangling the facts to try not to pay up, just okay here's the dosh. Sounds like they're used to being in the wrong
  7. For a Mk1 Mx5, anything from £200 depending on spec and mods. Mines covered for £5k on insurance.
  8. Cost of a full set of standard shocks and springs plus bumpstops and topmounts and gaskets £827.80 plus fitting Cost of original wheels £235.24 EACH plus new tyres as these are 14" and the busted ones are 15", T1-R's £66.40 plus delivery and fitting. Altogether you're looking at over £2000, ER, just skimmed your thread, jeez you're lucky no one was hurt. Turned into a bit of a nightmare but glad you got sorted.
  9. A few weeks ago travelling down a country lane I hit a pothole at the side of the road. Couldn't avoid it due to narrow road and passing oncoming traffic. Didn't see it really either to be honest but jeez, did we feel it, the Mrs screamed Got out and took a few pics. The spanner is 13 cm long. Result: 2 x Cades Miras 15 x 6.5 buckled and twisted, not recommended to repair as faces are distorted. 2 x P5 Puredrive shocks blown and leaking. Geometry pharqued Tyres still good and holding pressure Wheels and shocks are both now discontinued so will have to replace the full sets. Costs: Set of rims I like Set of new P5 Sportdrives Geometrey Tyre swap to new rims New spigot rings Total £1625 all for the sake of a FR!!&&!N& £100 pot hole repair. Surrey County Council better pay up.
  10. I believe BBR also "chucked" a few other components from the kit and made new parts. P.s. How's the MK3 Cossie running Tark?
  11. That's disgraceful, an accident waiting to happen. Any idea when the last MOT was?
×
×
  • Create New...