An Incident

[ToyotaFan63]

In summary, the car only took a week to be fixed. I went through the insurance because I would imagine the claim would take a lot longer through the council and I cannot be without a car. I have a protected NCD with the insurance company and as my insurance is due for renewal at the end of March, I will be inevitably shopping around for the best deal. I also had an e-mailed response from the council to say that they were looking into my claim, but don't expect a solution for up to three months. It's a case of "don't call us, we'll call you". Just want to say thanks for all your support, ideas and expertise on all of this. As an aside, I was talking to my next door neighbour who has a 1.8 GR Sport and she tells me her premium has shot up this year. Hasn't everything????

[ToyotaFan63]

THE FINAL OUTCOME. Just a further update on the resolution to this story. My claim was declined by the council's insurers on the basis that "...no negligence was involved... the grid was inspected on 21/12/2022 (The incident happened on 17/01/2023) ... the grid is owned by BT and not the council...".  I can appeal the outcome (if I obtain a solicitor) but at that point it wouldn't be worth it. I would like to know if any of the owners of the other five cars damaged, claimed and were also rejected but I don't know any of them?. My only course of action now is to pursue BT themselves to see what they have to say. Otherwise it's £200 excess down the drain and increased premiums...

Oh and my insurance renewal came through from Dial Direct. Last year £419, this year £863!!!. Needless to say I shopped around and got it through Toyota for £436.

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Do you have legal protection as part of your car insurance policy?

Or Small Claims Court, which you can do online?

[Cyker]

Yeah, this is where your insurance can flex their lawyers, but get everything in writing; If they are trying to pass the buck to BT, then you want that explicitly in writing so BT can't try and pass the buck back.

This is how they get away with it tho', they make it such a PITA to claim on most people give up as it isn't worth the time and angst.

[Steven83]

A few things that irritate me in this instance.

You pay insurance to cover any accidents, often for years and years without ever making a claim. Yet you make one claim and the premium doubles. So what was you paying for in the first place then?  It’s ridiculous.

 

You also pay road tax yet the roads are awful and no one wants to take any responsibility for it. 
 

I feel for you on this one. Considering you have found another quote that is reasonable at this point I’d say walk away. That’s what I’d do anyway. I’d rather wipe it from memory and move on than keep using time and energy to pursue something they will likely wriggle their way out of. 

[Dylanfan]

5 hours ago, Steven83 said:

A few things that irritate me in this instance.

You pay insurance to cover any accidents, often for years and years without ever making a claim. Yet you make one claim and the premium doubles. So what was you paying for in the first place then?  It’s ridiculous.

 

You also pay road tax yet the roads are awful and no one wants to take any responsibility for it. 
 

I feel for you on this one. Considering you have found another quote that is reasonable at this point I’d say walk away. That’s what I’d do anyway. I’d rather wipe it from memory and move on than keep using time and energy to pursue something they will likely wriggle their way out of. 

A lot depends in the insurance company. If you go after BT you’ll probably need legal help, doing it alone is difficult.

[ToyotaFan63]

Thanks for all the comments - much appreciated. Haven't been on here for a while but have decided to just put it down to experience. I think the summary is that if it had been a pothole then negligence could have been proved, but because it's a grid issue, they don't want to know. The weight of a lorry could have done this five minutes before I arrived, so I can understand why they see it's not negligent. At the end of the day I'm still enjoying the car and that's all I want!. Thanks.

[Roy124]

Regarding finding out about others who may also have had damage I suggest two courses of action.

One is a DPA request to the council asking about any other claims both before and after their inspection.   That they made an inspection and declared there was no problem does not prove that the problem only existed since the inspection. 

The other is to post a question on Nextdoor which can elicit information from others.

 

[AndrueC]

On 5/31/2023 at 9:40 AM, Steven83 said:

You also pay road tax yet the roads are awful and no one wants to take any responsibility for it. 

No, we don't, not in the UK anyway. Here it has never been called 'road tax'. It's Vehicle Excise Duty and as that article says the money generated goes into the general pot and is spent as/where the government wants to.

The condition of roads is poor in a lot of places but that has nothing (directly) to do with the annual tax we pay for our vehicles.

[Cyker]

Well, originally it was - They just renamed it so they could get away with using the money for other things.

The original introduction of what we now know as VED was specifically a tax for funding road construction and maintenance; The idea was the new tax would make the road network self-funded.

However, they generated more funds than they actually used (This was a looong time ago, like early 1900s), so the surplus kept getting raided to fund other projects.

At some point, they just formalized this practise and the tax was no longer ring-fenced, and paid into the general taxation pool instead.

Ironically this has made the goverment over-extend itself, spending more than they have and now they don't have enough to maintain the roads (Or so they claim!).

The original setup was much fairer (i.e. road tax used for maintenance and construction of road networks, with the excess being used for other things).

But it's like the Dartford Toll, one of my many pet gripes - The reason they changed it to be a Dartford 'Charge' is because 'Toll' has a specific legal meaning, and because we paid off the bridge in something like 2003, they were no longer allowed to charge a Toll and it should have become free to cross, but to get around this they renamed the 'Toll' to 'Charge' so they could continue to rip people off crossing it.

 

[Basil-BarryC]

59 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Well, originally it was - They just renamed it so they could get away with using the money for other things.

The original introduction of what we now know as VED was specifically a tax for funding road construction and maintenance; The idea was the new tax would make the road network self-funded.

However, they generated more funds than they actually used (This was a looong time ago, like early 1900s), so the surplus kept getting raided to fund other projects.

At some point, they just formalized this practise and the tax was no longer ring-fenced, and paid into the general taxation pool instead.

Ironically this has made the goverment over-extend itself, spending more than they have and now they don't have enough to maintain the roads (Or so they claim!).

The original setup was much fairer (i.e. road tax used for maintenance and construction of road networks, with the excess being used for other things).

But it's like the Dartford Toll, one of my many pet gripes - The reason they changed it to be a Dartford 'Charge' is because 'Toll' has a specific legal meaning, and because we paid off the bridge in something like 2003, they were no longer allowed to charge a Toll and it should have become free to cross, but to get around this they renamed the 'Toll' to 'Charge' so they could continue to rip people off crossing it.

 

Yes I remember the original tunnel being opened in 1963 by transport minister Ernest Marples, at the time he said of the tolls they would cease when the tunnel costs would be repaid. Then the Government found out one tunnel wasn’t sufficient for the volume of traffic so a second bore would be required. Then when this was completed still not enough capacity so a Bridge was proposed. The charges to motorists have more than repaid the project costs, but now we’re told another Lower Thames crossing is required from Gravesend to Essex linking the A2(M2) to the M25

The Dartford crossing was designed to handle 136,000 vehicles per day today it carries nearly 160,000 ( 2019 figures )

The Government now claims that the payments help manage demand rather than pay for maintenance and infrastructure costs and the renamed Dart Charge will remain permanent 

Total rip off for motorists, unless you cross between 10.00pm and 6.00am when it’s free.

[AndrueC]

1 hour ago, Cyker said:

Well, originally it was - They just renamed it so they could get away with using the money for other things.

Right and according to Wikipedia all of that happened before most of us were born (1937) and I'd be amazed if any of our members or indeed any current resident of the UK was driving back when it became part of general taxation.

I'd say that makes it irrelevant for the purposes of a modern-era discussion.

I'm not trying to defend government and definitely not taxation. However if you're going to try and argue a point it's best to start from solid ground.

Saying that you pay 'road tax' means that right from the start you're wrong 😉

[Cyker]

Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes.