Driving over a "defect" in a local road I broke the o/s front roadspring on my Smart Roadster-Coupe. I made a claim which the council have now declined to pay. The reason for their refusal is that they inspected the road within a month before the incident and their inspection concluded that the "defect" that broke my spring was not sufficient to cause damage to vehicles.
Can anyone who might have experienced this or might have knowledge of the legal situation advise me on whether or not to take it further.
|
|
Having some knowledge of how springs are tested for durability by the manufacturer, I suggest that driving over the road defect was merely the straw which broke the camel's back and was not the sole cause of the failure. It's likely that the spring was already weakened and could have failed at virtually any time.
|
|
Over the last few years my front tyres have worn down as a result of the condition of the various road surfaces in my town.............maybe I could claim for a new set as a result of this?
|
@L'escargot.
You may be right.
@Tedcrilly
You know what they say about sarcasm? But perhaps you don't.
|
abob
a good few years ago I claimed and received £260 for a new alloy wheel and tyre - the Council refused saying they had checked the hole and it was on record but by time I hit it a few weeks later it was twice as deep and long -- The magic words I used were Ignorance is no defense in law (that hole was bigger)- Negligence (fixing hole)and the magic word which I can't spell even after putting all combination in Word and doing a spell check is "Malfescience" (I think is liability)- I had a reply within days of sending a letter to their insurers saying they accepted responsibility.
it might be worth a try -- by way - did you take pictures and measurements
|
dxp55
Word you are struggling for is malfeasance which is legal speak for wrongdoing by a public official
|
|
|
|
> I suggest that driving over the road defect was merely the straw which broke
> the camel's back
I agree - I'd expect damage to the tyre, rim, or anything that restricts suspension movement[1] first.
[1] Do cars still have "bump stops"?
|
|
|
|
Well the Council have a duty to maintain the roads (they are not doing us a favour by doing this, it's what we pay our taxes for)
So if they have failed in their duty you have a case.
Have they repaired the hole? If they have, why? Afterall their inspection said it wasn't deep enough to cause damage so why have they repaired it.
Next have you gone through the full complaint's procedure of the Council or have you been fobbed off at the first stage.? Depending on which Council you are dealing with, they can have up to 2 or 3 stages
Stage 1 - Fobb off
Stage 2 - Fobb off by a more senior person
Stage 3 - Fobb off by an even more senior person
Then you can go to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO)
If you've done Stage 1 - 3 try the LGO
|
|
i think the council should look into this hole some more maybe have a meeting about it and then ring fence it?
|
There are a few jibes about this but if you are on receiving end it's no joke - after all, we all pay a lot of money to Gov and local Authority in one tax or another and these things should be seen to. In theory we should have best roads in world but where is our money wasted - A gallon of petrol for the right answer.
ps thank you CGNorwich
Edited by dxp55 on 16/12/2009 at 20:45
|
|
Thanks to those who have offered constructive suggestions. The claims procedure involved my taking a photograph, but no measurements were taken. The offending "defect" has still not been repaired, and I intend to appeal against the Council's decision.
|
|
Did you keep the old spring? Usually when a spring breaks it will be in the first turn at the top or bottom. When you look at a break it is also usual to see some well established corrosion along 50-60% of the fracture face showing the fracture had set in some while before the final break. If you could show a clean break you may have a case. A spring in good condition should withstand a huge pothole or running straight into a kerb at speed with, as others have said, major tyre/wheel damage before the spring is affected.
|
By now, even a completely clean break will have rusted over.
Corrosion over 50 to 60 % of the area would also be very unusual - springs are always very highly stressed parts, and they cannot bear to lose more than say 5 or 10% of the working section before they fail. However, to see this clearly, you need to look at the fracture surface the same day that the spring broke - the rust does appear over the reamining surface very quickly.
If you do see a really freshly broken spring, you'll be lucky to see rusted areas on the fracture surface greater than 1 to 2mm in diameter - the critical crack size before failure is small.
|
|
Hmmm. I'll not argue the corrosion percentages but stand by the fact every broken spring I've changed has showed a differential appearance between an area which has obviously been broken/stressed prior to the final break and the different looking new area where it snapped.
|
You do tend to get different looking areas because of the way the crack begins growing in at right angles to the coil, and then, during the sudden failure, it needs to begin to turn to form the characteristic helical fracture surface - that's quite normal, but, it isn't the difference between a pre-existing crack and the final fracture.
If you get to a coil spring fracture very quickly, ideally within a day, you'll find most of the fracture surface to be completely rust free. Once the fracture has been sitting in the sludge in spring cup for a few weeks, or a few months, it's much more difficult to see what really went on.
There's no way any car's coil spring is over designed enough to allow 50 or 60% of the working area to have failed.
Phrased another way, I don't doubt at all what you've seen, however, I do think that it can be difficult to interpret fracture surfaces correctly unless you are well practised.
As an example of the difficulties in interpreting fracture surfaces, this morning, I've just been replying to a fracture report for a failed part from a power station, and their interpretation of the fracture surface, even with the help of scanning electron microscopes and all the latest laboratory kit missed some blindingly obvious points, mis-characterising the type of loading which caused the failure which would have sent the re-engineering project down completely the wrong track. Even the experts in their labs can and do get this worng!
Edited by Number_Cruncher on 17/12/2009 at 12:36
|
|
I would be very doubtful that the pothole cause the break. I think a lot of modern springs are poorly made, often the bump or pothole is the last straw and it fails at that time. We see plenty of broken springs, often on cars that have spent most of their life on the motorway. Also you see some where the springs at one end of the car are always breaking but those at the other never do, so I don't think potholes and speedbumps are a major issue for springs.
|
............ I don't think potholes and speedbumps are a major issue for springs.
I agree with you, but previous threads on this subject indicate that the vast majority of Backroomers will, for whatever reason, disagree!
|
|
The issue is the speed they are taken at, higher the speed the more damage to the suspension... ask 'em why they take them at 40mph and they answer that it smooths the bumps out... stupid pink fluffy dice!
Edited by Webmaster on 19/12/2009 at 01:55
|
The issue is the speed they are taken at ............
It shouldn't make any difference. For a given compression of the spring, the load in the suspension spring isn't related to the speed at which the spring is compressed. The manufacturers carry out durability approval tests at compressions and compression speeds far in excess of those experienced when a car goes over a pothole or speed bump. The things which will experience a higher load at higher speeds are the dampers and their mountings. If driving over a pothole or a speed bump results in the spring breaking then you can bet your boots that the spring was already damaged/weakened and that it was just waiting to break.
|
The council usually has an inspection regime which is carried out to a national standard as laid out in an expensive book. It is only a code of practice and not law, but if they stick to this it is a good defence.
The local authority has a duty (in law) "to maintain the fabric of the highway." (that's the phrase you need to google uk for), and is what you will need to show that they failed to do, on the balance of probability.
Do you have a copy of the council's inspection reports, and photos of the hole?
Can you show that the hole took some time to develop and that the general condition of the fabric of the highway had not been maintained?
You need to show that the failure was not novel (such as by collapsed culvert), but was due to an insufficient and inadequate inspection and maintenance regime.
Edited by Hamsafar on 18/12/2009 at 17:26
|
|
