Can I Sue The Council?

ankaragucu

Hi, last year while turning my car into a small car park in front of a group of shops I collided with an unmarked black bollard at the side of the entrance.All the other bollards in the row had that reflective white band around the top of them and in the dark, I just simply didnt see the end bollard.To cut a long story short, over €1900 damage to the car, headlight, wing panel, edge of bonnet all needed work.
I contacted the council and received a reply from their insurers.I sent them all documents they requested, photos at the scene, damage to car, garage bill receipts for repair, etc.They subsequently replied again asking for one or two other bits of info which I again sent off to them.I then received a letter from them in which they refused any liability.The reason and I quote was, "the council are not responsible for the actions of third parties" , in other words they are not responsible for the vandalised bollard.I agreed they are not responsible for vandalism but argued that they are responsible for the upkeep of their own equipment/property.They also sent me a Google Maps photo showing the said bollard complete with reflective strip and informed me that this photo was taken in May 2018!Thats more than 12 months before the accident happened!(March 2019)
So thats where I'm currently at.Could anyone advise me on this please?I've never taken a case against anyone before and am not claiming for hire car, loss of earnings or anything else, I just wish to recoup what the damage came to.I suffered no injuries whatsoever.I appreciate that the insurers will always try to put you off in the first instance but what would be my chances in pursuing this?Would the Smalk Claims Court

no

ankaragucu

ankaragucu wrote: »

Hi, last year while turning my car into a small car park in front of a group of shops I collided with an unmarked black bollard at the side of the entrance.All the other bollards in the row had that reflective white band around the top of them and in the dark, I just simply didnt see the end bollard.To cut a long story short, over €1900 damage to the car, headlight, wing panel, edge of bonnet all needed work.
I contacted the council and received a reply from their insurers.I sent them all documents they requested, photos at the scene, damage to car, garage bill receipts for repair, etc.They subsequently replied again asking for one or two other bits of info which I again sent off to them.I then received a letter from them in which they refused any liability.The reason and I quote was, "the council are not responsible for the actions of third parties" , in other words they are not responsible for the vandalised bollard.I agreed they are not responsible for vandalism but argued that they are responsible for the upkeep of their own equipment/property.They also sent me a Google Maps photo showing the said bollard complete with reflective strip and informed me that this photo was taken in May 2018!Thats more than 12 months before the accident happened!(March 2019)
So thats where I'm currently at.Could anyone advise me on this please?I've never taken a case against anyone before and am not claiming for hire car, loss of earnings or anything else, I just wish to recoup what the damage came to.I suffered no injuries whatsoever.I appreciate that the insurers will always try to put you off in the first instance but what would be my chances in pursuing this?Would the Smalk Claims Court

Sorry, would the Small Claims Court be an option?Thanks for any help....

kippy

ankaragucu wrote: »

Hi, last year while turning my car into a small car park in front of a group of shops I collided with an unmarked black bollard at the side of the entrance.All the other bollards in the row had that reflective white band around the top of them and in the dark, I just simply didnt see the end bollard.To cut a long story short, over €1900 damage to the car, headlight, wing panel, edge of bonnet all needed work.
I contacted the council and received a reply from their insurers.I sent them all documents they requested, photos at the scene, damage to car, garage bill receipts for repair, etc.They subsequently replied again asking for one or two other bits of info which I again sent off to them.I then received a letter from them in which they refused any liability.The reason and I quote was, "the council are not responsible for the actions of third parties" , in other words they are not responsible for the vandalised bollard.I agreed they are not responsible for vandalism but argued that they are responsible for the upkeep of their own equipment/property.They also sent me a Google Maps photo showing the said bollard complete with reflective strip and informed me that this photo was taken in May 2018!Thats more than 12 months before the accident happened!(March 2019)
So thats where I'm currently at.Could anyone advise me on this please?I've never taken a case against anyone before and am not claiming for hire car, loss of earnings or anything else, I just wish to recoup what the damage came to.I suffered no injuries whatsoever.I appreciate that the insurers will always try to put you off in the first instance but what would be my chances in pursuing this?Would the Smalk Claims Court

If this were a child dressed in black (as can happen) who would you blame?

Kimbot

To me this is a case of you were not paying attention to your surroundings so it's your own fault really.

Johnny Sausage

wow hahaha

no not a hope

KildareP

You weren't driving with due care and attention and you hit a stationary object.

I'm not sure on what grounds you can reliably argue that it's not at least partially your fault.

Has the bollard since been repaired?

Mr Flicky

ankaragucu wrote: »

Hi, last year while turning my car into a small car park in front of a group of shops I collided with an unmarked black bollard at the side of the entrance.All the other bollards in the row had that reflective white band around the top of them and in the dark, I just simply didnt see the end bollard.To cut a long story short, over €1900 damage to the car, headlight, wing panel, edge of bonnet all needed work.
I contacted the council and received a reply from their insurers.I sent them all documents they requested, photos at the scene, damage to car, garage bill receipts for repair, etc.They subsequently replied again asking for one or two other bits of info which I again sent off to them.I then received a letter from them in which they refused any liability.The reason and I quote was, "the council are not responsible for the actions of third parties" , in other words they are not responsible for the vandalised bollard.I agreed they are not responsible for vandalism but argued that they are responsible for the upkeep of their own equipment/property.They also sent me a Google Maps photo showing the said bollard complete with reflective strip and informed me that this photo was taken in May 2018!Thats more than 12 months before the accident happened!(March 2019)
So thats where I'm currently at.Could anyone advise me on this please?I've never taken a case against anyone before and am not claiming for hire car, loss of earnings or anything else, I just wish to recoup what the damage came to.I suffered no injuries whatsoever.I appreciate that the insurers will always try to put you off in the first instance but what would be my chances in pursuing this?Would the Smalk Claims Court

No. In fact you probably need to re-sit your driving test if you are unable to avoid small object. As another poster has pointed out that could have been a child and you could be in prison now.

RocketRaccoon

Is everyone in the country now out to sue over everything? Absolutely pathetic.

Mod
It is reasonable for the poster to raise this in a Legal Discussion thread
As for liability, sin ceist eile

Eggs For Dinner

The Council might sue you for damage to their bollard. You've provided them with evidence of what occurred

TheBoyConor

Mr Flicky wrote: »

As another poster has pointed out that could have been a child and you could be in prison now.

earra come off of it. Prison me hole. Nobody goes to prison here unless it is for very very serious intentional crimes or relentlessly repeated crimes.


And don't worry, the council aren't going to come after OP and sue over a scratched bollard. If they did that they'd be at it full time as things are being hit and bumped all the time. It would be considered normal wear and tear for street furniture.

Eggs For Dinner

TheBoyConor wrote: »

And don't worry, the council aren't going to come after OP and sue over a scratched bollard. If they did that they'd be at it full time as things are being hit and bumped all the time. It would be considered normal wear and tear for street furniture.

Only because it can be difficult to find the culprit and establish the cause. In this instance, the OP has provided both.

Plumbthedepths

You hit a stationary object but believe it's the council's fault?

28064212

Yes OP, you absolutely can sue the council


Successfully suing the council, however...

TheBoyConor

I assure you , the council will have no interest in claiming off op for the sake of a scuffed bollard. It would only aggravate matters and be a red rag to a bull who they would be afraid would start pestering councillors over it and turn it all into a big deal over nothing.

kippy

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You hit a stationary object but believe it's the council's fault?

Sure wasn't it missing a reflective strip on it!
The councils fault surely.........

I am surprised the council even entertained initial conversation on it.

kippy

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I assure you , the council will have no interest in claiming off op for the sake of a scuffed bollard. It would only aggravate matters and be a red rag to a bull who they would be afraid would start pestering councillors over it and turn it all into a big deal over nothing.

I don't think the poster was being entirely serious to be honest.

Plumbthedepths

kippy wrote: »

Sure wasn't it missing a reflective strip on it!
The councils fault surely.........

I am surprised the council even entertained initial conversation on it.

Entering polite conservation (while filing said claim in the not happening file) costs nothing.

TheBoyConor

Unanimous opinions here.

OP, you're bate. Leave it go I'd say.

ankaragucu

kippy wrote: »

I don't think the poster was being entirely serious to be honest.

I was being serious actually.Purely for reasons of brevity I left out some other details.The bollard in question was the end one in a row of about twelve and on a dark night overly easy to miss, especially as it was one of three that had only recently been added to the other nine when they narrowed the entrance.Turns out the security guard of a nearby shop came running when he heard the scrape and he almost immediately informed me that I was about the fifth person to do this.Believe me lads you are all calling this without seeing the exact location involved, I wouldnt want it to happen to any of you.The council have in fact since removed said bollard altogether.Sorry if I've wasted your time but I've just tried to explain what happened as best I can.Yes I should have been paying better attention and I feel pretty stupid about it but believe me, a three foot high, black pole is all too easy to miss on a dark night.Especially as like several other people did, its easy to assume as you approach that the line of these bollards ends where the line of reflective strips end.
Still, I've learned the hard way.

D3V!L

ankaragucu wrote: »

I was being serious actually.Purely for reasons of brevity I left out some other details.The bollard in question was the end one in a row of about twelve and on a dark night overly easy to miss, especially as it was one of three that had only recently been added to the other nine when they narrowed the entrance.Turns out the security guard of a nearby shop came running when he heard the scrape and he almost immediately informed me that I was about the fifth person to do this.Believe me lads you are all calling this without seeing the exact location involved, I wouldnt want it to happen to any of you.The council have in fact since removed said bollard altogether.Sorry if I've wasted your time but I've just tried to explain what happened as best I can.Yes I should have been paying better attention and I feel pretty stupid about it but believe me, a three foot high, black pole is all too easy to miss on a dark night.Especially as like several other people did, its easy to assume as you approach that the line of these bollards ends where the line of reflective strips end.
Still, I've learned the hard way.

Can you post a link to the street view of the bollard ? It might put some of this nonsense to rest.

Johnny Sausage

ankaragucu wrote: »

Still, I've learned the hard way.

if you learned your lesson why are your trying to sue for compo haha

jimmycrackcorm

If the council have removed this bollards since then it stands to reason they acknowledge that there was a problem with it being there.

In this instance imho you could take action against them but who knows whether or not you could win in court or lose out more having to pay costs.

In a lot of cases though an insurer might be more amenable to pay up when the cost of doing so is less than the cost of defending the claim.

kippy

ankaragucu wrote: »

I was being serious actually.Purely for reasons of brevity I left out some other details.The bollard in question was the end one in a row of about twelve and on a dark night overly easy to miss, especially as it was one of three that had only recently been added to the other nine when they narrowed the entrance.Turns out the security guard of a nearby shop came running when he heard the scrape and he almost immediately informed me that I was about the fifth person to do this.Believe me lads you are all calling this without seeing the exact location involved, I wouldnt want it to happen to any of you.The council have in fact since removed said bollard altogether.Sorry if I've wasted your time but I've just tried to explain what happened as best I can.Yes I should have been paying better attention and I feel pretty stupid about it but believe me, a three foot high, black pole is all too easy to miss on a dark night.Especially as like several other people did, its easy to assume as you approach that the line of these bollards ends where the line of reflective strips end.
Still, I've learned the hard way.

I was speaking about the poster who said that the council could sue you for damaging their property.

Anyhow, I'll ask you again as you failed to answer:
If this were a child dressed in black (as can happen) who would you blame?

kippy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If the council have removed this bollards since then it stands to reason they acknowledge that there was a problem with it being there.

In this instance imho you could take action against them but who knows whether or not you could win in court or lose out more having to pay costs.

In a lot of cases though an insurer might be more amenable to pay up when the cost of doing so is less than the cost of defending the claim.

They moved it cause people who shouldn't be let out on their own kept hitting it, causing their staff countless hours of dealing with insurance claims and the like.

Control the controllable.

Imagine the council paid out on this type of thing.
What is to stop anyone who pranged their car themselves elsewhere, claiming the stationary council bollard was at fault for their prang? As big as a mess the country is with insurance and claims it would be far worse if this type of thing we let go.

ankaragucu

kippy wrote: »

I was speaking about the poster who said that the council could sue you for damaging their property.

Anyhow, I'll ask you again as you failed to answer:
If this were a child dressed in black (as can happen) who would you blame?

As I've said kippy, the place and bollards in question none of you are familiar with.The fact that bollards had been there for years, then extra ones added and then again removed certainly hasnt helped the situation.The very same thing has happened with five people.Only then the council removed said bollard again altogether.
To answer your question, I have not ever thankfully knocked down child, man or beast wether they be dressed in black or not.If I did then yes I would be to blame .This pole was at most six inches wide and to compare it to a child is not realistic.Will you answer a question for me?Why do they bother putting reflective strips on the top of these bollards in the first place???

kippy

ankaragucu wrote: »

As I've said kippy, the place and bollards in question none of you are familiar with.The fact that bollards had been there for years, then extra ones added and then again removed certainly hasnt helped the situation.The very same thing has happened with five people.Only then the council removed said bollard again altogether.
To answer your question, I have not ever thankfully knocked down child, man or beast wether they be dressed in black or not.If I did then yes I would be to blame .This pole was at most six inches wide and to compare it to a child is not realistic.Will you answer a question for me?Why do they bother putting reflective strips on the top of these bollards in the first place???

Some children viewed side on are no wider than 6 inches.

So you would admit blame if it were a child - why not blame the parent for not putting reflective clothing on the child?

The strips are obviously put there to make it easier for people to see the object.

If you were the 5th person to do this, then perhaps 4 other people had already raised the issue with the council.

If so, where the council not aware and responsible the for risk, but did not do anything about it time. As per the op, the bollard has since been removed, too late for the the OP unfortunately

I’d say anyone would feel hard done by in the Ops situation, especially after being told of the previous incidents

Could you request that they confirm if anyone else had reported the bollard to them Using the freedom of information request

ankaragucu

kippy wrote: »

Some children viewed side on are no wider than 6 inches.

So you would admit blame if it were a child - why not blame the parent for not putting reflective clothing on the child?

The strips are obviously put there to make it easier for people to see the object.

Seeing as they put reflective strips on them in the first place do you not think they should be maintained so that they are fit for purpose?

cbb1982

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Is everyone in the country now out to sue over everything? Absolutely pathetic.

That is the mindset of the country, it's ridiculous!

Time Magazine

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If the council have removed this bollards since then it stands to reason they acknowledge that there was a problem with it being there.

In this instance imho you could take action against them but who knows whether or not you could win in court or lose out more having to pay costs.

I am not a lawyer - maybe things have changed recently - but my understanding is that councils are liable for malfeasance, but not nonfeasance. Malfeasance means they have actively done something wrong, nonfeasance means they sat on their hands and didn't do anything. This sounds like a case of nonfeasance, i.e. not fixing the white strip on the bollard.

Sorry to hear about your accident OP, but I'd say you'll have to just take it on the chin.