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.

kippy

ankaragucu wrote: »

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?

Look,
this again is why the country is fcked with insurance - you admit you did not see the bollard. Who is to know whether you would have seen it with the strip on it?
Maybe the council should erect floodlights to illuminate the bollard or hire someone to assist people reversing their car....

Indeed - it would be nice if things were perfect all the time - but you cannot blame the council for you reversing into a stationary object in any way.

I don't see why you are happy to admit liability if it was a child you reversed into but not in this case.

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

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

What is "In Time"?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

What is "In Time"?

If 4 people had previously crashed into the bollard, then it would suggest that there was an issue with it

Obviously if these other incidents all happened the day before it would be hard to expect the council to have rectified it, but if it happened over a timeframe were the council had been made aware, but just did nothing, then surely they should take some of the blame and cost. The other bollards were all different with reflectors.

Couldn’t hurt to ask the council if anyone else had an accident with the bollard, based on the witness (security guard)

wench

ankaragucu wrote: »

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?

How often do you think they should check for damage/vandalism?
Every week? Every day? A constant presence immediately carrying out repairs?


I would have some sympathy if you had reversed into the pole, but to drive forward into it is just carelessness.

wench

wench wrote: »

How often do you think they should check for damage/vandalism?
Every week? Every day? A constant presence immediately carrying out repairs?


I would have some sympathy if you had reversed into the pole, but to drive forward into it is just carelessness.

If there had been 4 previous accidents involving the same bollard, then yes, they should have checked it and at least restored it to the correct condition. (If the other accidents had been reported)

It appears they have removed it after the ops accident. Finally they did something

FluffPiece

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If there had been 4 previous accidents involving the same bollard, then yes, they should have checked it and at least restored it to the correct condition. (If they had been reported)

It appears they have removed it after the ops accident. Finally they did something

Op may have been the first to report it.

If a year ago a Google maps image showed a reflective strip and in correct position, it's reasonable to say it's a relatively recent case if vandalism where the reflective strip was removed and once op brought it to their attention the bollard was reviewed and removed appropriately.

As for op sueing, he can always try. He may or may not get lucky

Ginger83

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Unanimous opinions here.

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

Could he not claim for his lost time as well?

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

If 4 people had previously crashed into the bollard, then it would suggest that there was an issue with it

Obviously if these other incidents all happened the day before it would be hard to expect the council to have rectified it, but if it happened over a timeframe were the council had been made aware, but just did nothing, then surely they should take some of the blame and cost. The other bollards were all different with reflectors.

Couldn’t hurt to ask the council if anyone else had an accident with the bollard, based on the witness (security guard)

How do the council and their workers prioritise work?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

How do the council and their workers prioritise work?

What exactly is your point?

If they have put something in place which has potentially caused 4 cases of damage, before the Op hit the bollard (that was defective), they have a duty of care

Now if it was not on their priority list, that does not remove their duty of care surely

Anyway, this is all hypothetical. If I was the op I would ask the council if other accidents had been reported, and if they were aware that the bollard did not have the reflector prior to the OPs accident

This would be my response to their dismissal.

To “People in the know”, can the op request this info using the a freedom of information request

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

If they have put something in place which has potentially caused 4 cases of damage, before the Op hit the bollard (that was defective), they have a duty of care

Now if it was not on their priority list, that does not remove their duty of care surely

Anyway, this is all hypothetical. If I was the op I would ask the council if other accidents had been reported, and if they were aware that the bollard did not have the reflector prior to the OPs accident

This would be my response to their dismissal.

To “People in the know”, can the op request this info using the a freedom of information request

Already explained earlier. the council are not responsible for nonfeasance ie doing nothing. they are only responsible for malfeasance ie doing something that caused the accident. they did not cause the reflective strip to be removed so they are not liable.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Already explained earlier. the council are not responsible for nonfeasance ie doing nothing. they are only responsible for malfeasance ie doing something that caused the accident. they did not cause the reflective strip to be removed so they are not liable.

Thanks for repeating :-)

Graces7

Small Claims court is a good idea.

Kimbot

They could always counter claim with "sure how do we know you didn't remove the reflective strip to strengthen a claim"

The main point here is that as a driver you have to be aware of your surroundings, you hit a bollard so you weren't very aware of your surroundings. Your car has headlights so even on approach you should have seen the bollard so the dark is not an excuse, or we're your lights not working 100%?

Eggs For Dinner

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. Nonsense claims being lodged in the knowledge the ridiculous cost of defending the claim means the claimant will be offered "go away" money.

Deub

ankaragucu wrote: »

it was one of three that had only recently been added to the other nine when they narrowed the entrance.

By recently added, you mean at least since May 2018.

GM228

Graces7 wrote: »

Small Claims court is a good idea.

The Small Claims Procedure (not a court) when used for small damage claims is in relation to an action involving a tort. With regards to liability of a council see this post onwards which explains the legal situation and the principles of misfeasance or nonfeasance:-

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112010006

Their liability in such situations has been long settled by the courts.

Johnny Sausage

Graces7 wrote: »

Small Claims court is a good idea.

Encouraging frivolous claims is not a good idea

OP was not driving with due care and attention

endacl

Graces7 wrote: »

Small Claims court is a good idea.

Small claims procedure.

Which you appear to have confused with Judge Judy.

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is your point?

If they have put something in place which has potentially caused 4 cases of damage, before the Op hit the bollard (that was defective), they have a duty of care

Now if it was not on their priority list, that does not remove their duty of care surely

Anyway, this is all hypothetical. If I was the op I would ask the council if other accidents had been reported, and if they were aware that the bollard did not have the reflector prior to the OPs accident

This would be my response to their dismissal.

To “People in the know”, can the op request this info using the a freedom of information request

The OP is very much at fault here - how anyone can say otherwise is ridiculous.

Graces7

Johnny Sausage wrote: »

Encouraging frivolous claims is not a good idea

OP was not driving with due care and attention

Arguable and with that amount of damage? I think she should and that it is far from frivolous in any way. The bollard was not properly finished; no reflective strip That is negligence.


Over and out from me. Good luck OP