Vehicle damage by Pothole

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 9:27am #1

Hi All,

As title says I badly damaged my vehicle recently by hitting a very large pothole -
Cost alone for a new wheel and tire is close to 900 euro. there are also other expenses for vehicle damage assessment and some minor mechanical work - total cost is close to 1500 euro - all this detailed on the quote i received.

I have borrowed a spare wheel from someone in the meantime so the car is driveable.

I have contacted the council regarding a claim, but I see they are looking for invoices - Unfortunately I do not have 1500 euro spare to get the damage corrected professionally and am able to manage with the minor damage and the spare wheel.

The question I have is should I not be compensated alone by producing the quote for damage as opposed to having to produce invoices? This seems very odd. If my house was fire damaged to the tune of 20k, I would not have to produce invoices of new items as I obviously would not be able to buy them without the compensation first.

Thanks.. IB

mickuhaha · 13-12-2019 9:51am

What wheel and tyre costs 900

Iseedeadpixels · 13-12-2019 9:52am

mickuhaha wrote: »

What wheel and tyre costs 900

A girl I worked with had a mini cooper cost a grand to fix a damaged wheel and tyre.

mickuhaha · 13-12-2019 9:59am

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

A girl I worked with had a mini cooper cost a grand to fix a damaged wheel and tyre.

The most expensive 19" original mini wheel are € 2300 for a set via mini. I know as my wife has them.

GBX · 13-12-2019 10:06am

irish bloke wrote: »

Hi All,

As title says I badly damaged my vehicle recently by hitting a very large pothole -
Cost alone for a new wheel and tire is close to 900 euro. there are also other expenses for vehicle damage assessment and some minor mechanical work - total cost is close to 1500 euro - all this detailed on the quote i received.

I have borrowed a spare wheel from someone in the meantime so the car is driveable.

I have contacted the council regarding a claim, but I see they are looking for invoices - Unfortunately I do not have 1500 euro spare to get the damage corrected professionally and am able to manage with the minor damage and the spare wheel.

The question I have is should I not be compensated alone by producing the quote for damage as opposed to having to produce invoices? This seems very odd. If my house was fire damaged to the tune of 20k, I would not have to produce invoices of new items as I obviously would not be able to buy them without the compensation first.

Thanks.. IB

A quote is just that - an invoice is based on the work having being carried out. Fair enough you had to borrow a wheel to get your car drivable but if any person/organisation paid out on quotes because somebody said something happened their vehicle they'd soon have no money.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 10:11am

mickuhaha wrote: »

What wheel and tyre costs 900

I knew writing some smart a... would say that

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 10:13am

GBX wrote: »

A quote is just that - an invoice is based on the work having being carried out. Fair enough you had to borrow a wheel to get your car drivable but if any person/organisation paid out on quotes because somebody said something happened their vehicle they'd soon have no money.

That doesnt make sense at all.
There is evidence of the incident, photos, police report, quote of damage done to the car from the garage... I didnt just say something happened

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 10:34am

irish bloke wrote: »

That doesnt make sense at all.
There is evidence of the incident, photos, police report, quote of damage done to the car from the garage... I didnt just say something happened

you made a claim a claim against the council. they will only pay for any expenses you incur, if they even do that. so far you have not incurred any expenses.

GBX · 13-12-2019 10:34am

Ok. I'll explain it more simpler terms for you:

A quote is for proposed work. You've given them evidence of the damage etc - But they have no evidence of the repair being completed. So you expect them to pay out on that? An invoice is based on work completed.
It's not ideal situation for you having to pay out before but that's how it usually goes. Friend of mine had the same with a council claim.

GerardKeating · 13-12-2019 10:41am

irish bloke wrote: »

The question I have is should I not be compensated alone by producing the quote for damage as opposed to having to produce invoices?

Some people might get a quote for brand new parts, from the most expensive main dealer, and when they get the cash, fix it with part from a breaker yard and pocket the savings.

mickuhaha · 13-12-2019 10:42am

You could take them to court.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 12:48pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you made a claim a claim against the council. they will only pay for any expenses you incur, if they even do that. so far you have not incurred any expenses.

I have damage to the tune of 1500 euros to my car. I am not in a position right now to pay that much to get it fixed properly.

I can get it back on the road for less, but it will only be a repair and not right. The car is worth alot of money and none of this was my fault.

The council are covered by an insurance company (IPB Insurance) - Ild be shocked if I need to provide invoices when this is not a requirement with any other insurance claim.
Cant see that standing up in a court of law

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 12:48pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

You could take them to court.

maybe i will

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 12:54pm

irish bloke wrote: »

I have damage to the tune of 1500 euros to my car. I am not in a position right now to pay that much to get it fixed properly.

I can get it back on the road for less, but it will only be a repair and not right. The car is worth alot of money and none of this was my fault.

The council are covered by an insurance company (IPB Insurance) - Ild be shocked if I need to provide invoices when this is not a requirement with any other insurance claim.
Cant see that standing up in a court of law

they will cover your actual losses. nothing more. Your actual losses are what you pay out to repair your vehicle. They wont pay out based on what somebody thinks it might cost.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:03pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they will cover your actual losses. nothing more. Your actual losses are what you pay out to repair your vehicle. They wont pay out based on what somebody thinks it might cost.

That's disgraceful if its the case - the dwell time between me paying and receiving compensation apparently is huge - that's even if I receive it.
Fully intend fighting that if it turns out to be the case - legally via ombudsman or solicitor

jmreire · 13-12-2019 1:06pm

If you have the misfortune to his a pothole ( and it's happened to most people at one time or an other, given the state of Irish road's) and do €1500 worth of damage, which would include steering / suspension damage I presume, are you happy just replacing the wheel and driving it on? What is listed on the estimate you got? Because there are two thing's that you never mess with on a car, steering and brakes.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:09pm

jmreire wrote: »

If you have the misfortune to his a pothole ( and it's happened to most people at one time or an other, given the state of Irish road's) and do €1500 worth of damage, which would include steering / suspension damage I presume, are you happy just replacing the wheel and driving it on? What is listed on the estimate you got? Because there are two thing's that you never mess with on a car, steering and brakes.

Correct, wheel, tire, steering component and tire pressure sensor.

I am not happy to drive it as it is but i dont really have a choice. Constant tire pressure fault in car also due to the damage

CIARAN_BOYLE · 13-12-2019 1:15pm

If the damage is so bad you should be able to claim off your insurer to get it repaired and they would claim from the council.

You shouldn't be worrying about the dwell time between repair and payout. Insurance worries about that for you.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:17pm

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If the damage is so bad you should be able to claim off your insurer to get it repaired and they would claim from the council.

You shouldn't be worrying about the dwell time between repair and payout. Insurance worries about that for you.

The last thing I want to do is claim off my own insurance for fear my premium would go up - complete false economy

bladespin · 13-12-2019 1:20pm

irish bloke wrote: »

The last thing I want to do is claim off my own insurance for fear my premium would go up - complete false economy

But that's what it's for???

You claim from your insurance and they in turn will claim from the council (if they can), the whole reason to have insurance is so you don't carry the hassle yourself.

It's a non-fault claim, so loading would be minimal in general, worth discussing with your insurance anyway, get their advise first.

GM228 · 13-12-2019 1:21pm

First thing people need to realise is that legally the Council is not liable for damage caused by a poor state of repair in the roads.

The principles of misfeasance or nonfeasance comes into play, unless they did something which caused the damage they are not liable, and failure to maintain is not a cause of action, this is long settled by the courts.

GerardKeating · 13-12-2019 1:22pm

irish bloke wrote: »

That's disgraceful if its the case - the dwell time between me paying and receiving compensation apparently is huge - that's even if I receive it.
Fully intend fighting that if it turns out to be the case - legally via ombudsman or solicitor

irish bloke wrote: »

The last thing I want to do is claim off my own insurance for fear my premium would go up - complete false economy

Some insurance companies allow one to make a claim and then repay them before the next renewal, does yours?

FishOnABike · 13-12-2019 1:23pm

Do councils pay out for damage caused by poor road surfaces?

I thought that there was a difference in liability between mal feasance and non feasance and the council could be liable for what they do but not what they don't do i.e if the road had been badly repaired and a pothole reoccurred due to the bad repair the council would possibly be liable but if the pothole occurred in a road due to gradual deterioration over time that the council would not be liable.

I've driven into a pothole recently and suffered a blowout of a reasonably new tyre (just over three months old), luckily it was just the cost of a tyre and tracking but I just took the financial hit because I thought the council wasn't liable as the road didn't appear to have been any repairs to the road where the pothole was.

EDIT: I see GM228's post above on the same principle.

GM228 · 13-12-2019 1:24pm

FishOnABike wrote: »

Do councils pay out for damage caused by poor road surfaces?

I thought that there was a difference in liability between mal feasance and non feasance and the council could be liable for what they do but not what they don't do i.e if the road had been baadly repaired and a pothole reoccurred due to the bad repait the council would possibly be liable but if the pothole occurred in a road due to gradual deterioration over time that the council would not be liable.

I've driven into a pothole recently and suffered a blowout of a reasonably new tyre (just over three months old), luckiny it was just the cost of a tyre and tracking but I just took the financial hit because I thought the counhcil wasn't liable as the road didn't appear to have been any repairs to the road where the pothole was.

No they don't, I posted it two posts back, it is long settled by our highest courts.

bladespin · 13-12-2019 1:25pm

GM228 wrote: »

No they don't, I posted it two posts back, it is long settled by our highest courts.

Can you give some evidence of this? Plenty of posts here have said they do (depending on circumstances etc).

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 1:28pm

bladespin wrote: »

Can you give some evidence of this? Plenty of posts here have said they do (depending on circumstances etc).

have a read here if you like. https://www.lawlibrary.ie/media/lawlibrary/media/Secure/20150214TortCraven.pdf

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:28pm

GM228 wrote: »

First thing people need to realise is that legally the Council is not liable for damage caused by a poor state of repair in the roads.

The principles of misfeasance or nonfeasance comes into play, unless they did something which caused the damage they are not liable, and failure to maintain is not a cause of action, this is long settled by the courts.

Thanks for this even though I had to look up the meaning of both terms:)

In terms of the definition of Nonfeasance. This is the failure to act where action is required—willfully or in neglect.

Is there not a case for Nonfeasance based on the fact there was a failure to act based on neglect?

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 1:30pm

irish bloke wrote: »

Thanks for this even though I had to look up the meaning of both terms:)

In terms of the definition of Nonfeasance. This is the failure to act where action is required—willfully or in neglect.

Is there not a case for Nonfeasance based on the fact there was a failure to act based on neglect?

I think you misunderstood. If the damage to your vehicle is caused due to nonfeasance by the maintainer of the road then you do not have a claim.

GM228 · 13-12-2019 1:34pm

bladespin wrote: »

Can you give some evidence of this? Plenty of posts here have said they do (depending on circumstances etc).

They are not lawfully liable for failure to repair a road, that is not to say they won't pay out, but if you went to court to try and force them to then you will loose as the courts have already long held they are not liable.

From the Gallagher vs Leitrim County Council [1955] 89 ILTR 151 High Court case:-

The principle is that the local highway authorities are not liable for leaving public roads or footpaths in improper repair; they are not liable for failing to take steps to restore these roads or footpaths to a proper state of repair. If, however, they do anything and do it in such a way as to create a danger they are liable. They are not liable because they do not do the work in the manner which will give the most permanent results

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:37pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I think you misunderstood. If the damage to your vehicle is caused due to nonfeasance by the maintainer of the road then you do not have a claim.

But what if as GM228 called out "Unless they did something which caused the damage they are not liable" i.e repaired a hole poorly that got worse due to rain. Is this not the council doing something which caused my damage?

Mickeroo · 13-12-2019 1:39pm

I was aware one CoCo who used to pay out on damage from potholes but only if they were aware of the pothole beforehand (through someone reporting it to them or whatever).

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 1:39pm

irish bloke wrote: »

But what if as GM228 called out "Unless they did something which caused the damage they are not liable" i.e repaired a hole poorly that got worse due to rain. Is this not the council doing something which caused my damage?

that would be misfeasance which they are liable for.

GM228 · 13-12-2019 1:40pm

irish bloke wrote: »

But what if as GM228 called out "Unless they did something which caused the damage they are not liable" i.e repaired a hole poorly that got worse due to rain. Is this not the council doing something which caused my damage?

No, they have to do something which causes a danger to be liable, the repair may not cause any danger, the subsequent falling back into disrepair may cause a future danger and as already shown they are not liable for leaving in "improper repair".

GM228 · 13-12-2019 1:41pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

I was aware one CoCo who used to pay out on damage from potholes but only if they were aware of the pothole beforehand (through someone reporting it to them or whatever).

Even when they know of such potholes they are still not liable in law.

13-12-2019 1:42pm

GM228 wrote: »

They are not lawfully liable for failure to repair a road, that is not to say they won't pay out, but if you went to court to try and force them to then you will loose as the courts have already long held they are not liable.

Part in bold is important: a council may have a policy of reimbursing amounts for invoices (possibly because it's cheaper than defending a case in court, regardless of the likely outcome), but if you're planning to take advantage of such a policy, you are bound by their requirements. If you don't want to go by that policy, then your other option is the courts, but as shown, you're going to have a difficult time of it

Mickeroo · 13-12-2019 1:44pm

GM228 wrote: »

Even when they know of such potholes they are still not liable in law.

I don't doubt you there, they still paid out though.

ED E · 13-12-2019 1:46pm

GM228 wrote: »

They are not lawfully liable for failure to repair a road, that is not to say they won't pay out, but if you went to court to try and force them to then you will loose as the courts have already long held they are not liable.

From the Gallagher vs Leitrim County Council [1955] 89 ILTR 151 High Court case:-

Does that apply to pedestrian pavements also?

GM228 · 13-12-2019 1:47pm

ED E wrote: »

Does that apply to pedestrian pavements also?

Yes.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:48pm

GM228 wrote: »

No, they have to do something which causes a danger to be liable, the repair may not cause any danger, the subsequent falling back into disrepair caused the danger and as already shown they are not liable for leaving in "improper repair".

The repair may not cause immediate danger but the repair may also cause subsequent danger.

If it was repaired previously then in my mind they caused danger by not repairing it correctly

RGARDINR · 13-12-2019 1:53pm

Hit a pothole myself abut 2 years ago on left hand front passenger side burst one tyre straight out and when i got home following morning the left back passenger tyre was gone as well. Had to get a call out from garage with 2 new tyres. Council paid out 190 about 11 mths later for the tyres but was a lot of e-mails going back and forth over it.

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 1:53pm

irish bloke wrote: »

The repair may not cause immediate danger but the repair may also cause subsequent danger.

If it was repaired previously then in my mind they caused danger by not repairing it correctly

unfortunately for you the courts do not share your mind.

irish bloke · 13-12-2019 1:58pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

unfortunately for you the courts do not share your mind.

Maybe so - but reading everything in the thread I believe there maybe a case for misfeasance based on the council doing something that caused a danger - I also appreciate there are other strong opinions here.

GM228 · 13-12-2019 2:00pm

irish bloke wrote: »

Maybe so - but reading everything in the thread I believe there maybe a case for misfeasance based on the council doing something that caused a danger - I also appreciate there are other strong opinions here.

Eh, it's not just strong opinions, it's binding decisions of our superior courts, the principles involved are long settled.

ohnonotgmail · 13-12-2019 2:05pm

irish bloke wrote: »

Maybe so - but reading everything in the thread I believe there maybe a case for misfeasance based on the council doing something that caused a danger - I also appreciate there are other strong opinions here.

and the burden would be on you to proove that they did something that caused a danger and that danger resulted in the damage to your vehicle.

jmreire · 13-12-2019 2:43pm

bladespin wrote: »

But that's what it's for???

You claim from your insurance and they in turn will claim from the council (if they can), the whole reason to have insurance is so you don't carry the hassle yourself.

It's a non-fault claim, so loading would be minimal in general, worth discussing with your insurance anyway, get their advise first.

Sure it's clear what insurance is for, but in Ireland, where Motor Insurance is concerned....let sleeping dog's lie. Regardless of the circumstance's and the right's and wrong's of the case.For something like this, I would not involve my insurance..once you log a claim, you are flagged, and believe me, even if 100% innocent, that will be on your file. And it's not as if the insurance company's here need any justification for jacking up your premium...

bladespin · 13-12-2019 2:57pm

jmreire wrote: »

Sure it's clear what insurance is for, but in Ireland, where Motor Insurance is concerned....let sleeping dog's lie. Regardless of the circumstance's and the right's and wrong's of the case.For something like this, I would not involve my insurance..once you log a claim, you are flagged, and believe me, even if 100% innocent, that will be on your file. And it's not as if the insurance company's here need any justification for jacking up your premium...

You are entitled to know what's on your 'file' btw, BUT either way many policies also include legal cover, which can be used for advice, this should not jeopardize your NCB.

jmreire · 13-12-2019 3:09pm

bladespin wrote: »

You are entitled to know what's on your 'file' btw, BUT either way many policies also include legal cover, which can be used for advice, this should not jeopardize your NCB.

Yes I bought the extra "legal cover" when I was renewing a few week's ( I have always bought it and breakdown recovery too, just in case,,,,,,,) None the less, I would only"disturb" the insurance when I would absolutely need to.....and preferably never. That's about how much I would trust them here in Ireland. But each to his own...I feel sorry for the OP...he is caught between a rock and a hard place, and damaged wheel's and tyres etc are a very common occurrence here in Ireland. And as this post has shown, legally, there are pretty stringent circumstances to be fulfilled before the Council can be held liable. It's not completely cut and dried by any mean's. I wish the OP good luck with finding a solution.

Chevy RV · 13-12-2019 3:13pm

RGARDINR wrote: »

Hit a pothole myself abut 2 years ago on left hand front passenger side burst one tyre straight out and when i got home following morning the left back passenger tyre was gone as well. Had to get a call out from garage with 2 new tyres. Council paid out 190 about 11 mths later for the tyres but was a lot of e-mails going back and forth over it.

I had the exact same experience recently. Only 1 tyre and tracking /wheel damage but they paid up eventually AFTER I supplied the Invoices

RGARDINR · 13-12-2019 3:55pm

Yeah true with the invoices as had to do the same, funny within 2 days the pothole was filled in as well once i rang them. Wouldn't of been surprised if a few other cars had hit it. To be honest wouldn't of thought you could claim like that from the council only that a neighbour mentioned they did as well the year before over a pothole, i would of thought it was just tough luck that you hit it and had to pay outta your own pocket and that was it.

hullaballoo · 13-12-2019 5:18pm

While the law is long settled on misfeasance/nonfeasance, there is a view that doctrine is outdated and should be challenged as has happened in England in recent years. It doesn't exist any more there and neither the State nor its emanations can evade liability for nonfeasance.

I would not like to guess when it might be abolished here but you would think the day will have to come.

GM228 · 13-12-2019 7:10pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

While the law is long settled on misfeasance/nonfeasance, there is a view that doctrine is outdated and should be challenged as has happened in England in recent years. It doesn't exist any more there and neither the State nor its emanations can evade liability for nonfeasance.

I would not like to guess when it might be abolished here but you would think the day will have to come.

The distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance was abolished by statute in England though in relation to Council liability (not a court challenge) which resulted in the abolishment of the defence of nonfeasance (it happened in 1961, not in recent years), however, despite the abolishment of the defence there is still a test (known as the Miller test) to be satisfied before a Council is liable.

Unless S60 of the Civil Liability Act 1961 is commenced I can't see the position changing any time soon here, in 2014 Hogan J indicated in the McCabe vs South Dublin County Council [2014] IEHC 529 High Court case that the principles would remain good in Irish law unless challenged on a constitutional basis (or obviously if legislation dictates) and the Courts here continue to affirm the doctrine including I believe a few very recent cases.

Vehicle damage by Pothole

Comments