Crashed Porsche into concrete in missing of road can i claim from council

roughan

JUST GOING THRU THE INVOICE
THE CARPET IN THE BOOT IS 700 eURO !!!!
THE BUMPER IS 2.5K
IT REALLY IS A BIT OVER THE TOP

omega man

deman wrote: »

I'll get my coat.

Congrats OP.

Omega Man

The questions that I asked were questions I was sure that the council's insurance company would have asked. I didn't make this personal. It was just a cross examination until the OP started getting personal with me.

I don't know you Omega Man. You don't know me. So how can you tell me to get a life. I wouldn't swap my life with anyone.

Now thats just a plain stupid comment deman. You got personal with the OP because he has a porsche, plain and simple. You judged that he was a particular person because he drove one and the fact you dont 'know him' makes you look like the fool.

roughan

deman wrote: »

I'll get my coat.

Congrats OP (you can buy me a hat and some peppered sauce with your money)

QUOTE]

eh tabasco sauce

roughan

you can buy a Porsche for 2k
people have this misconception about the drivers
im not loaded or a millionaire i have a passion for cars and thats it
some people follow lpool or manu Religiously
some people spend all their money on booze or whatever
my Porsche is 9 years old and prob worth the same as 2007 opel vectra
but if i had a 2007 vectra and it got damaged i prob would not have had some sympathy here not all the neg comments like i got

deman

I don't have an argument with you Omega Man. Why do you insist on continuing? I was wrong, the OP was right. And at least the OP would have been better prepared for a legal case knowing what kind of awkward questions the council could have asked if they had been will to do so.

End of discussion.

eth0_

I don't mean to be a "hater" roughan, but I am having a tough time believing the council are really admitting liability.

Let me get this straight:

You were on the wrong side of the road avoiding kids. You couldn't have done an emergency stop? Surely you were putting yourself in more danger by driving into oncoming traffic.

Damage to your car from a pothole that the council haven't fixed is a legitimate reason to claim against the council - mounting a plainly obvious (I used to live around there and drove past that little island all the time) traffic island and hitting a damaged bollard - that you have no idea when the initial damage occured - and crashing your car is a completely different matter.

Any chance you can scan in proof of their admitting liability?

roughan

eth0_ wrote: »

I don't mean to be a "hater" roughan, but I am having a tough time believing the council are really admitting liability.

Let me get this straight:

You were on the wrong side of the road avoiding kids. You couldn't have done an emergency stop? Surely you were putting yourself in more danger by driving into oncoming traffic.

Damage to your car from a pothole that the council haven't fixed is a legitimate reason to claim against the council - mounting a plainly obvious (I used to live around there and drove past that little island all the time) traffic island and hitting a damaged bollard - that you have no idea when the initial damage occured - and crashing your car is a completely different matter.

Any chance you can scan in proof of their admitting liability?

this is getting stupid ...i posted here looking for advice
i got a million neg comments and now you are wanting me to scan documents to prove what i said ????

roughan

Bollard what Bollard ??
do you mean the 4 inches of steel and concrete with a broken light ???
im not going to post here again on this
i have taken down the pictures and as far as im concerned its case closed

richie_rvf

roughan wrote: »

this is getting stupid ...i posted here looking for advice
i got a million neg comments and now you are wanting me to scan documents to prove what i said ????

Agreed!!

Like I said before, the council were aware of the damaged bollard but took no action with regards to warnings so therefore they are liable - regardless!

Congrats roughan - from a fellow car enthusiast

edanto

Congrats roughan, I think you lucked out there, but that doesn't take any of the shine off it.

-> I'm kindw with Noelie on it being a waste of our money, but it's still sweet for you.

HemmingSay

I'm not entirely sure who should assume responsibility here, but this thread started on Thursday the 18th, presumably the council received the complaint on the Friday 19th, and you had an admission of liability by the Tuesday 23rd.

Not even 2 full working days to process a large claim - better local government indeed...

edit(sorry, i originally stated you had recieved a letter of liability, i've changed that to admission)

pedro ferio-vti

roughan wrote: »

UPDATE!!!!!
**** just got a quote from Porsche for 9.6k Damage to car and
JUST RECIEVED AN ADMISSION OF LIABILITY FROM THE COUNCILS CLAIMS HANDLER I WILL HAVE MY CHQ IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS!!!!!!!!
woooo hoOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congratulations! I'm happy for you that in this case common sense has prevailed. I actually read all of this thread to say that I thought you had a pretty strong case myself but didn't get a chance now that you've been sorted. So well done, you deserve to have your car repaired. I think everybody needs to probably go back to the point that Wil so rightly made:

wil wrote: »

The whole section is raised as in a gentle speedbump, again I am not sure to what end, and the traffic island slopes to flush with the road, which I think may be a issue in itself. The bollard without the plastic fitting could be effectively invisible, at least from certain angles, there are no road markings.

Ok, the pictures that the OP took were good but did not show what the obstruction / bollard would have looked like from his view driving towards it. I would hazard a guess and agree with Wil above and say that from certain angles, yes it would appear to be invisible hence a danger to motorists approaching from this direction.

I doubt the OP was going fast or driving without due care and attention but perhaps learning from this can maybe exercise a further element of caution in future but even with this in place, this obstruction could have caught a lot of people out who drive sports cars with a low ride height (which was the reason the fact it was a Porsche was even mentioned originally I suspect, not to attract haters). The City centre has enough going on a night time while driving around to be aware of, without obstacles like this there to catch you out.

I'm glad I read this thread as it was interesting to see certain people reacting to the fact that the OP mentioned he had a Porsche, certainly highlights the righteous high horse, muppetry and "hate" elements present here. Out of all of the people and 5 pages that posted, only a very small amount of posters offered spot on advice including Wil, GolferX et al. A large number of the posts can be discounted to either "cross-examinations" (which the OP never asked for) or people hating on him because he drives a Porsche (which in reality is well within the reach of anybody nowadays anyway)

pedro ferio-vti

Oh and for those who would begrudge (Noelie and Edanto) the OP on getting money back for the damage done to his car, saying it's a waste of "their" money etc... well it's my tax money as well however, you are venting your frustrations in the wrong direction. Direct them at the COUNCIL... they have made a balls of laying out the junction. Even if they painted the island / kerb in reflective paint or something to highlight to motorists that there is an island there!!!!

I would love to see a photo basically giving us a view approaching this junction at night time in a car with a similarly low ride height just to illustrate better.

blindman

I doubt you have heard the last of this. You should be done for reckless driving. You do not swing wide to avoid children you stop. (or wear a condom ). When the gardai do their paperwork they always look at the possibility of bringing charges. Expect a bill from the firebrigade too.
I am not picking on you because of the car you drive but because you didn't stop for children. If I remember that junction correctly, it sounds like you actualy accelerated around them or were travelling too fast in the first place.
I presume you made a statement to the gardai, it should make nice reading in court.

roughan

blindman wrote: »

I doubt you have heard the last of this. You should be done for reckless driving. You do not swing wide to avoid children you stop. (or wear a condom ). When the gardai do their paperwork they always look at the possibility of bringing charges. Expect a bill from the firebrigade too.
I am not picking on you because of the car you drive but because you didn't stop for children. If I remember that junction correctly, it sounds like you actualy accelerated around them or were travelling too fast in the first place.
I presume you made a statement to the gardai, it should make nice reading in court.

reckless driving at 10 kph ?? i doubt it
the children were talking on the corner not crossing the road
its not going to court
the fire brigade bill is included in the quote (300 euro)
and i have a garda report in my favour stating the road was dangerous and it was an accident waiting to happen

omega man

blindman wrote: »

I doubt you have heard the last of this. You should be done for reckless driving. You do not swing wide to avoid children you stop. (or wear a condom ). When the gardai do their paperwork they always look at the possibility of bringing charges. Expect a bill from the firebrigade too.
I am not picking on you because of the car you drive but because you didn't stop for children. If I remember that junction correctly, it sounds like you actualy accelerated around them or were travelling too fast in the first place.
I presume you made a statement to the gardai, it should make nice reading in court.

Jesus its done and dusted. I will take his word that the council have taken liability so therefore he wont face costs. As for the gardai, if you read his posts you will note that they initially indicated that he would be justified in following up with the council.

edanto

pedro ferio-vti wrote: »

Even if they painted the island / kerb in reflective paint or something to highlight to motorists that there is an island there!!!!

The whole area is flooded with streetlights, how could someone not see a low traffic island in the middle of the road and brake in time?!!

But the facts are that he didn't see it, made a claim to the council and they've rolled over. If I made the same mistake as him, I might have tried a claim too and I'd be rightly chuffed if I got the cheque.

I'm not red-faced because of the way it's turned out, I'm just surprised. I've no interest in being proved right or wrong on this, fair play to him for chancing his arm and getting closer to getting a cheque to pay at least some of his costs.

JHMEG

blindman wrote: »

You do not swing wide to avoid children you stop.

Give it a rest will ya. No-one was hurt. If people didn't swing to avoid stuff we'd have no need for ABS.

roughan

i request a mod to close this thread as it is getting silly and way off topic

Seth Brundle

done