Wonder if any of you can give some practical advice with regard to claiming for damage caused by speed humps?
This afternoon a friend turned up at an event with oil pouring out of the bottom of her sump, had a look underneath and found the bottom of the sump with a nice dent in it and a lovely little hole. Her son said, 'Told you, you had hit that drain cover' turned out that she had scraped the sump on a manhole cover placed a few feet after a speed hump.
The trail of oil was good enough for us to actually retrace her route back to the offending hump. Sure enough about four feet after the hump was a manhole cover protruding about a half inch or so from the surface of the road just in the right place to meet the sump on its way down after passing over the hump. About a yard after the manhole cover started her trail of oil. Fortunately I had a camera handy so have some nice shots of the damage to the car, the start of the oil trail, the manhole cover and its proximity to the hump plus a shot of another vehicle grounding.
She is not a 'boy racer', she is a mid-fifty year old, well respected, local school-teacher driving a 94 Metro and insists that she was doing no more than 15 mph when she went over the hump. Now she faces a bill for a tow-in and a new sump.
Now, given that we have picture evidence of all the damage etc which is the best way to proceed?
Should we try ringing the local council as the highway maintainer, put it in the hands of her insurance company, go straight to a small claim or claim against the utility that owns the manhole cover?
Advice would be greatly appreciated, especially from anyone who has succeeded in a similar claim.
|
I would think your friend has a cast iron case for compensation given what you have said. In my own experience from two succsessful claims for tyre damage caused by potholes, I would put my claim in writing and telephone the Highways Dept to let them know a claim is on the way. Keep copies of the photographs, and do not let a week go by without phoning to see what they are doing about the matter. If they refuse to accept liability, I would definately see a solicitor, and I would try to interest the local rag as well.
Definately one to keep us informed of, Cockle.
|
Be interesting to know if any other cars suffered similar damage.
I can't really see how a normal speed hump and slightly protruding manhole cover could cause any damage to a car being driven in an appropriate way.
Maybe the Metro's suspension was faulty. ie - needed pumping up.
|
I don't see it either. What's the ground clearance under a car?
4 or 5 inches? How can any part of a car hit a manhole cover protruding half an inch?
|
The car has dropped off the top of the hump and the front suspension has bottomed out just at the point where the manhole cover is. The height of the manhole cover protusion I suggest is not a defence, they are not supposed to protrude at all.
(There will be some disinclination to resist a claim, since in some peoples' minds the point of humps is to destroy cars - there is a hump or two around here I'd hesitate to take Toad-san over at any speed; on the other hand Prudence - Proton GTi - does not even have to slow, just sticks two wheels up, as it were!)
|
|
|
Trevor Potter wrote:
>
> I don't see it either. What's the ground clearance under a car?
> 4 or 5 inches? How can any part of a car hit a manhole cover
> protruding half an inch?
Young Trev, you used to bemuse me: now you amuse me.
Are you not aware of suspension?
Is it your dad who is the driving instructor?
I should have known that those highway code gaffes couldn't have come from the genuine article.
|
|
|
Trevor Potter wrote:
>
> I don't see it either. What's the ground clearance under a car?
> 4 or 5 inches? How can any part of a car hit a manhole cover
> protruding half an inch?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Then again, the style is vaguely familiar.
Mechanic?
MOT tester?
|
|
|
|
|
There is plenty of evidence along the road stretch involved of a lot of vehicles grounding, lot of gouges in the tarmac and a lot of scrapes on the top of the humps as well. When I looked under the Metro the ground clearance under the sump certainly seemed to be little different to my Fiesta or SWMBO's Cavalier but I take the point that the front suspension of the Metro might need a pump up. I'll certainly suggest to my friend that she gets it checked while in for the sump repair because if it proves to be within spec then it will add more weight to her case.
The cover is located so that a shortish wheelbase car would have its rear wheel still on the apex of the hump as the sump area would pass over it, therefore the vehicle would be in a 'nose down' attitude. While I was taking the photos both an Escort and a Vectra grounded but just past the cover, obviously due to their longer wheelbase, neither was travelling quicker than 10-15 mph.
There also seems to be an inconsistency in the height of the humps, when I drove along there yesterday some of the humps are little more than ripples in the tarmac whereas others seemed very steep and vehicles were passing over them at barely walking pace. Another argument, but this used to be a main road which now has 20 odd humps in a 3/4 mile stretch.
The more I think about this the more it appears to be a poorly thought out & cheap attempt at traffic calming, just like quite a few others no doubt.
|
|
|
I know a road where I could overtake Xr3/2 and Golf with a 2Cv because of the humps.Cockle wrote:
>
> Wonder if any of you can give some practical advice with
> regard to claiming for damage caused by speed humps?
>
> This afternoon a friend turned up at an event with oil
> pouring out of the bottom of her sump, had a look underneath
> and found the bottom of the sump with a nice dent in it and a
> lovely little hole. Her son said, 'Told you, you had hit that
> drain cover' turned out that she had scraped the sump on a
> manhole cover placed a few feet after a speed hump.
> The trail of oil was good enough for us to actually retrace
> her route back to the offending hump. Sure enough about four
> feet after the hump was a manhole cover protruding about a
> half inch or so from the surface of the road just in the
> right place to meet the sump on its way down after passing
> over the hump. About a yard after the manhole cover started
> her trail of oil. Fortunately I had a camera handy so have
> some nice shots of the damage to the car, the start of the
> oil trail, the manhole cover and its proximity to the hump
> plus a shot of another vehicle grounding.
> She is not a 'boy racer', she is a mid-fifty year old, well
> respected, local school-teacher driving a 94 Metro and
> insists that she was doing no more than 15 mph when she went
> over the hump. Now she faces a bill for a tow-in and a new
> sump.
>
> Now, given that we have picture evidence of all the damage
> etc which is the best way to proceed?
> Should we try ringing the local council as the highway
> maintainer, put it in the hands of her insurance company, go
> straight to a small claim or claim against the utility that
> owns the manhole cover?
>
> Advice would be greatly appreciated, especially from anyone
> who has succeeded in a similar claim.
|
|
|
Cockle
When Highways install these 'humps' do they not work from an agreed specification? Any member of the Forum work for the LA that can help?
Just a thought have you also measured the base and height of the bump? Spirit level across the top and measure the drop either side to ground level. Also by taking measurements of the wheel base of the vehicle involved and drawing a scale plan (not as hard as it seems) you can play with it home and maybe prove that there is a conflict. If so then I would suggest you have them.
DVD
|
|
|
Even easier: first check if any vertical face is higher than 6mm (sic).
You might find some useful links here: Government Links
And some interesting background further down the same page here: Road Humps
|
|
|
Thank you all for your input, as usual lots of food for thought.
The, the links were very useful, from my recollection of these humps from when I was taking the photos they may well contravene the regs, in which case I suggest my friend should get a result.
I have now forwarded all the comments to her and left it in her capable hands to pursue the local council. In the best traditions of the Back-room I will let you all know the results when available.
Once again, thanks.
|
i) Send a recorded delivery letter to the chief exec asking for £ x, briefly explaining the nature of the claim, and stating that they have 10 days to pay up or you will issue a county court summons
ii) After 10 days issue a small claims summons at the local county court, this is easy to do, the court staff will help you fill it in
99.9 % of the time in situations such as this councils will pay up on receipt of the summons
If push comes to shove, have your day in court and treat it as a fun project, drag along friends and press etc
|
|
|
|
