I’m suing the council for £600 Jag repair

Echo: Damage – Angela Nicholson with Chris Stanley Damage – Angela Nicholson with Chris Stanley

A DRIVER is suing Essex County Council after a pothole left her with a £600 repair bill.

Angela Nicholson, 45, had to fork out for new alloy wheels and repairs to the chassis on her Jaguar after it was damaged in Wickford Avenue, Pitsea.

She put in a claim for compensation following the incident in March, but after a frustrating six-month wait the council refused to pay up.

Highways bosses said the road was inspected just days after her complaint and was found to be in a “reasonable condition.”

Mrs Nicholson, of Mill Green, Pitsea, is so certain she has a valid case for compensation, she is risking losing a lot more money by taking the council to court.

She said: “The road is absolutely awful.

“People driving down there have to slowdown to about three miles per hour because it’s so bad, but this council reckons that is reasonable.

“I had to wait quite a while and even had to chase the council up for a response, only to find out it won’t pay me back.

“It’s quick enough to demand money when they wants it from us.

“I have considered starting a petition to urge the council to sort the problem out, but I’m not sure it will make any difference.

"It’s an issue all over Basildon.”

Mrs Nicholson, who is off work due to health reasons, is now selling her beloved Jaguar and planning to buy a cheaper car.

She is struggling to afford running costs, and is scared of causing even more damage, due to the rough roads across the borough.

Highways bosses would not comment on the impending court case.

A council spokesman said: “Essex County Council will not comment on the specific details of individual cases.

“All compensation claims received by Essex County Council are investigated fully and damages paid if the council is liable as the Highways Authority.

“All claims are given the same legal consideration, whether the claim is for minor damage to a vehicle or for personal injury.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:44am Wed 4 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

why is it always people with higher end cars...wheres all the Fiesta and Vauxhall Corsa claimants..?

and its so bad you have to slow to 3 mph: say says...so how did she damage a big car like that at 3 mph.
why is it always people with higher end cars...wheres all the Fiesta and Vauxhall Corsa claimants..? and its so bad you have to slow to 3 mph: say says...so how did she damage a big car like that at 3 mph. DogsMessInLeigh

8:01am Wed 4 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

All too often speeding is the root cause of such damage, otherwise hundreds of people would be claiming similar damage claims. Thin low walled tyres and weak alloys all contribute to the damage limitation, being less effective.
The council will use these reasons in court, to show there is enough reasonable doubt, in this claim, resulting in the inevitable verdict of not guilty M'lud
All too often speeding is the root cause of such damage, otherwise hundreds of people would be claiming similar damage claims. Thin low walled tyres and weak alloys all contribute to the damage limitation, being less effective. The council will use these reasons in court, to show there is enough reasonable doubt, in this claim, resulting in the inevitable verdict of not guilty M'lud Nowthatsworthknowing

8:20am Wed 4 Dec 13

pembury53 says...

they should be maintaining the highways fit for purpose, sue them......... the contractural obligations of road users are vigorously enforced, parking, speeding etc, so why should the council renage on their responsibilities and get away with it ?
they should be maintaining the highways fit for purpose, sue them......... the contractural obligations of road users are vigorously enforced, parking, speeding etc, so why should the council renage on their responsibilities and get away with it ? pembury53

8:25am Wed 4 Dec 13

Bigmama1 says...

She was struggling to pay running costs for running a jaguar! It was only after "supposedly" hitting a pothole she has decided to get a smaller car! I've had a small car for years. Less insurance, maintenance and more miles to the gallon. If she was struggling she took long enough to decide it was the size of her car causing the expense!
She was struggling to pay running costs for running a jaguar! It was only after "supposedly" hitting a pothole she has decided to get a smaller car! I've had a small car for years. Less insurance, maintenance and more miles to the gallon. If she was struggling she took long enough to decide it was the size of her car causing the expense! Bigmama1

8:37am Wed 4 Dec 13

Southend Andy says...

I'm not going to say anything about 'women drivers'
I'm not going to say anything about 'women drivers' Southend Andy

8:53am Wed 4 Dec 13

Cwizard says...

I can understand her frustration, I also drive down wickford avenue and now have to avoid driving a certain way due to the abysmal road surface, the tarmac/concrete is full of craters big enough to throw cars off course. We suffered a damaged tyre wall earlier this year due to the road surface.
I can understand her frustration, I also drive down wickford avenue and now have to avoid driving a certain way due to the abysmal road surface, the tarmac/concrete is full of craters big enough to throw cars off course. We suffered a damaged tyre wall earlier this year due to the road surface. Cwizard

9:32am Wed 4 Dec 13

Howard Cháse says...

It's a big problem on so many roads I Basildon and no doubt all over Essex. There was a big fund set up to sort pot holes after the first really bad winter about three or four years ago yet there are still plenty of big potholes around from that time.

Something needs to be done qquickly and there needs to be some sort of investigation into where those millions have gone.
It's a big problem on so many roads I Basildon and no doubt all over Essex. There was a big fund set up to sort pot holes after the first really bad winter about three or four years ago yet there are still plenty of big potholes around from that time. Something needs to be done qquickly and there needs to be some sort of investigation into where those millions have gone. Howard Cháse

9:36am Wed 4 Dec 13

bee.man says...

Ange and chris are both very carefull drivers and have worked hard for their dream car ,the roads around there are terrible the council needs to pay up costs .merry xmas to the both of you .
Ange and chris are both very carefull drivers and have worked hard for their dream car ,the roads around there are terrible the council needs to pay up costs .merry xmas to the both of you . bee.man

9:48am Wed 4 Dec 13

InTheKnowOk says...

We now live in a society that is gripped by compo fever ... Everyone is out to sue someone and it's fired up by those tedious adverts on tv telling us to ring if we've had an injury etc etc, even our phones are bombarded by text messages bleating on about PPI's ... We need to get a grip on this and clamp down on the abusers of this crazy system ..
We now live in a society that is gripped by compo fever ... Everyone is out to sue someone and it's fired up by those tedious adverts on tv telling us to ring if we've had an injury etc etc, even our phones are bombarded by text messages bleating on about PPI's ... We need to get a grip on this and clamp down on the abusers of this crazy system .. InTheKnowOk

9:53am Wed 4 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

"Mrs Nicholson, of Mill Green, Pitsea, is so certain she has a valid case for compensation, she is risking losing a lot more money by taking the council to court."

i wouldn't bother....throwing good money after bad springs to mind, a lot more money..? surely its a small claims court procedure.
good luck anyway..i think you will need it.
just move on if i was you, out the old Jag for its market value(if your lucky enough) and get a small car instead, put it down to experiance.
"Mrs Nicholson, of Mill Green, Pitsea, is so certain she has a valid case for compensation, she is risking losing a lot more money by taking the council to court." i wouldn't bother....throwing good money after bad springs to mind, a lot more money..? surely its a small claims court procedure. good luck anyway..i think you will need it. just move on if i was you, out the old Jag for its market value(if your lucky enough) and get a small car instead, put it down to experiance. DogsMessInLeigh

11:08am Wed 4 Dec 13

pembury53 says...

InTheKnowOk wrote:
We now live in a society that is gripped by compo fever ... Everyone is out to sue someone and it's fired up by those tedious adverts on tv telling us to ring if we've had an injury etc etc, even our phones are bombarded by text messages bleating on about PPI's ... We need to get a grip on this and clamp down on the abusers of this crazy system ..
Crickey, i agree with all of that..... but there are sometimes valid reasons to seek compensation..... if there were no taxes and penalties on motoring then fair enough, use the roads 'at your own risk' but that isn't the case, we pay plenty and are fined for every misdemeanor ........ no one could expect every hole to be repaired as soon as they appear, but some roads are cratered for months, even years.
[quote][p][bold]InTheKnowOk[/bold] wrote: We now live in a society that is gripped by compo fever ... Everyone is out to sue someone and it's fired up by those tedious adverts on tv telling us to ring if we've had an injury etc etc, even our phones are bombarded by text messages bleating on about PPI's ... We need to get a grip on this and clamp down on the abusers of this crazy system ..[/p][/quote]Crickey, i agree with all of that..... but there are sometimes valid reasons to seek compensation..... if there were no taxes and penalties on motoring then fair enough, use the roads 'at your own risk' but that isn't the case, we pay plenty and are fined for every misdemeanor ........ no one could expect every hole to be repaired as soon as they appear, but some roads are cratered for months, even years. pembury53

12:10pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ian P says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
All too often speeding is the root cause of such damage, otherwise hundreds of people would be claiming similar damage claims. Thin low walled tyres and weak alloys all contribute to the damage limitation, being less effective. The council will use these reasons in court, to show there is enough reasonable doubt, in this claim, resulting in the inevitable verdict of not guilty M'lud
As long as the " thin low walled tyres and weak alloys" as you put it are factory fit standard then the Council will not be able to use them as "damage limitation", as you put it. Before a vehicle and its optional equipment can go into mass production it must pass Homoligation, which covers a multitude of requirements, even down to things like the minimum gap between the control pedals. So as long as a mass produced vehicle has passed Homoligation it is approved for use on the public highway, whatever condition the highway might be in. Now that is worth knowing.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: All too often speeding is the root cause of such damage, otherwise hundreds of people would be claiming similar damage claims. Thin low walled tyres and weak alloys all contribute to the damage limitation, being less effective. The council will use these reasons in court, to show there is enough reasonable doubt, in this claim, resulting in the inevitable verdict of not guilty M'lud[/p][/quote]As long as the " thin low walled tyres and weak alloys" as you put it are factory fit standard then the Council will not be able to use them as "damage limitation", as you put it. Before a vehicle and its optional equipment can go into mass production it must pass Homoligation, which covers a multitude of requirements, even down to things like the minimum gap between the control pedals. So as long as a mass produced vehicle has passed Homoligation it is approved for use on the public highway, whatever condition the highway might be in. Now that is worth knowing. Ian P

12:22pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Mikkel1 says...

IF a road is as bad as claimed, WHY drive along it IF there is an alternative, even slightly longer way and in better condition?

WHY not complain to the county council on a weekly basis UNTIL such times they carry out repairs? After all, not only do we pay for good roads, the council will very soon get FED-UP with complaints and do something, as my wife and I found out with another body where we live. We had waited almost 7 months, so started phoning weekly, and we very soon got the matter sorted.
IF a road is as bad as claimed, WHY drive along it IF there is an alternative, even slightly longer way and in better condition? WHY not complain to the county council on a weekly basis UNTIL such times they carry out repairs? After all, not only do we pay for good roads, the council will very soon get FED-UP with complaints and do something, as my wife and I found out with another body where we live. We had waited almost 7 months, so started phoning weekly, and we very soon got the matter sorted. Mikkel1

12:34pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?
You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses? Nowthatsworthknowing

1:25pm Wed 4 Dec 13

emcee says...

More people should sue and I dare say that, in that majority of cases, the council will lose. Contrary to the report, you do not have to risk "losing a lot more money by taking the council to court". There are cheap, fast track methods, these days.
More people should sue and I dare say that, in that majority of cases, the council will lose. Contrary to the report, you do not have to risk "losing a lot more money by taking the council to court". There are cheap, fast track methods, these days. emcee

1:31pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Kim Gandy says...

Good luck. I never got my £130 for a pothole I hit at night, didn't even see it. Went back the next day and photographed it, sent in a claim form then was told I didn't qualify as I was the one who had reported it!

Once they put the orange paint around it that means they are "aware" of it, so forget any compensation.

Bunch of charlatans. And talking to Essex County Council is like talking to a brick wall. Even a protacted email conversation between myself and Rodney Bass,cabinet member for highways, on other issues recently, bore no fruit at all.
Good luck. I never got my £130 for a pothole I hit at night, didn't even see it. Went back the next day and photographed it, sent in a claim form then was told I didn't qualify as I was the one who had reported it! Once they put the orange paint around it that means they are "aware" of it, so forget any compensation. Bunch of charlatans. And talking to Essex County Council is like talking to a brick wall. Even a protacted email conversation between myself and Rodney Bass,cabinet member for highways, on other issues recently, bore no fruit at all. Kim Gandy

1:32pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Kim Gandy says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?
Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?[/p][/quote]Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of. Kim Gandy

1:36pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Jack222 says...

I still dont get it. Use the roads at your own risk is fine by me.

I assume - as I am a nice person - that council tries to fix holes as soon as possible and if I'm having bad luck and hit one not filled in then that's my tough luck.

To go to court assumes that the Council deliberately did not fill it in etc which is a very nasty outlook on life...

Alternatively the Council should banish all people from driving on their roads till they get a disclaimer from every driver saying they wont sue the council... :)
I still dont get it. Use the roads at your own risk is fine by me. I assume - as I am a nice person - that council tries to fix holes as soon as possible and if I'm having bad luck and hit one not filled in then that's my tough luck. To go to court assumes that the Council deliberately did not fill it in etc which is a very nasty outlook on life... Alternatively the Council should banish all people from driving on their roads till they get a disclaimer from every driver saying they wont sue the council... :) Jack222

2:15pm Wed 4 Dec 13

artytoit says...

I thought the roads in Southend were bad when I first moved there, but I've lived in Basildon for the past year and a half and it's beyond a joke. Not only are roads in appalling condition, but pavements are too, and many of the potholes are huge and have been there for a year or more.
The roads are a severe accident risk, especially to motorcyclists and motorists that don't know the area.
Why do so many people think that road users should just put up with dangerous roads and damage to their vehicle? After all, it's the same principle as the roads being icy, and you are all quick enough to complain if they are not gritted!
I thought the roads in Southend were bad when I first moved there, but I've lived in Basildon for the past year and a half and it's beyond a joke. Not only are roads in appalling condition, but pavements are too, and many of the potholes are huge and have been there for a year or more. The roads are a severe accident risk, especially to motorcyclists and motorists that don't know the area. Why do so many people think that road users should just put up with dangerous roads and damage to their vehicle? After all, it's the same principle as the roads being icy, and you are all quick enough to complain if they are not gritted! artytoit

2:37pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

artytoit wrote:
I thought the roads in Southend were bad when I first moved there, but I've lived in Basildon for the past year and a half and it's beyond a joke. Not only are roads in appalling condition, but pavements are too, and many of the potholes are huge and have been there for a year or more.
The roads are a severe accident risk, especially to motorcyclists and motorists that don't know the area.
Why do so many people think that road users should just put up with dangerous roads and damage to their vehicle? After all, it's the same principle as the roads being icy, and you are all quick enough to complain if they are not gritted!
It is all down to the manner in which you drive, speed over a small pot hole get damage, take a corner too fast on ice, expect to crash, some drivers never learn.
[quote][p][bold]artytoit[/bold] wrote: I thought the roads in Southend were bad when I first moved there, but I've lived in Basildon for the past year and a half and it's beyond a joke. Not only are roads in appalling condition, but pavements are too, and many of the potholes are huge and have been there for a year or more. The roads are a severe accident risk, especially to motorcyclists and motorists that don't know the area. Why do so many people think that road users should just put up with dangerous roads and damage to their vehicle? After all, it's the same principle as the roads being icy, and you are all quick enough to complain if they are not gritted![/p][/quote]It is all down to the manner in which you drive, speed over a small pot hole get damage, take a corner too fast on ice, expect to crash, some drivers never learn. Nowthatsworthknowing

3:45pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Head_Hunter61 says...

The facts are that in Small Claims Court, the verdict it is on the balance of probabilities, the council highways department often do not attend and you get a judgment by default that they then pay almost exactly on the 28th day. If they suspect adverse publicity they pay prior to the court date.

Costs are seldom awarded and the cost of commencing action is only £25. Only if an expert witness is required would you face any significant risk.

The council always turns down any claim, using this strategy means 99% of people just go "oh well" and pay for the cost of repairs. The 1% who take action win in the vast majority of cases.

As for the other comments about speeding etc, oh do behave, you obviously know little about how cars are built, the suspension components are easily damaged by a vehicle with a weight of approximately 1.5 Tons, (its called hitting a 3 inch pothole the force involved is major, especially to components on the "unsprung weight side of the car". To work it out is easy.
The formula for kinetic energy (KE) is expressed in Joules and it is calculated by dividing the total weight of the car by half, then square the speed if 20MPH then (20x 20) and you have the energy level. For example, 1,800 lbs times 400 (20 x20) = 720.000 Joules

That might explain why drivers of smaller cars do not claim as often. Or more likely they just accept the damage and costs as most smaller cars are driven by the young or the old, more successful people drive bigger cars.

Besides, it's not like motorists don't pay enough, in vehicle excise duty, fuel duty and VAT is it?

I really do think some of you need to get out more, you are all so fixated on making your little sniping comments.
The facts are that in Small Claims Court, the verdict it is on the balance of probabilities, the council highways department often do not attend and you get a judgment by default that they then pay almost exactly on the 28th day. If they suspect adverse publicity they pay prior to the court date. Costs are seldom awarded and the cost of commencing action is only £25. Only if an expert witness is required would you face any significant risk. The council always turns down any claim, using this strategy means 99% of people just go "oh well" and pay for the cost of repairs. The 1% who take action win in the vast majority of cases. As for the other comments about speeding etc, oh do behave, you obviously know little about how cars are built, the suspension components are easily damaged by a vehicle with a weight of approximately 1.5 Tons, (its called hitting a 3 inch pothole the force involved is major, especially to components on the "unsprung weight side of the car". To work it out is easy. The formula for kinetic energy (KE) is expressed in Joules and it is calculated by dividing the total weight of the car by half, then square the speed if 20MPH then (20x 20) and you have the energy level. For example, 1,800 lbs times 400 (20 x20) = 720.000 Joules That might explain why drivers of smaller cars do not claim as often. Or more likely they just accept the damage and costs as most smaller cars are driven by the young or the old, more successful people drive bigger cars. Besides, it's not like motorists don't pay enough, in vehicle excise duty, fuel duty and VAT is it? I really do think some of you need to get out more, you are all so fixated on making your little sniping comments. Head_Hunter61

4:07pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PoppyLuluMonty says...

The road in Wickford Avenue in Pitsea is an absolute disgrace, there are lots of potholes and cracks in the road, I'm not suprised the driver damaged her alloy wheels and chassis. Even my humble Ford Focus has taken a bashing at any speed higher than 10mph down that road.
The road in Wickford Avenue in Pitsea is an absolute disgrace, there are lots of potholes and cracks in the road, I'm not suprised the driver damaged her alloy wheels and chassis. Even my humble Ford Focus has taken a bashing at any speed higher than 10mph down that road. PoppyLuluMonty

4:10pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Keptquiettillnow says...

If they taxed cyclists to use the road then that money could be.....
Bloody cyclists
If they taxed cyclists to use the road then that money could be..... Bloody cyclists Keptquiettillnow

4:47pm Wed 4 Dec 13

andy:) says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
All too often speeding is the root cause of such damage, otherwise hundreds of people would be claiming similar damage claims. Thin low walled tyres and weak alloys all contribute to the damage limitation, being less effective.
The council will use these reasons in court, to show there is enough reasonable doubt, in this claim, resulting in the inevitable verdict of not guilty M'lud
This would be a civil claim so there is no guilty/not guilty, just a judge would decide whether there is a valid claim and this is on balance of probabilities, you would have to show good photo evidence, measurements of hole, perhaps an experts opinion.

Its worth using the court processes to ask what evidence the council will rely upon and as its a council perhaps a freedom of information request, has the council got documented evidence of the inspection just 'days before', what did it saym, etc..you may find they were telling porkies.

The person also isn't going to risk 'lots of money' as the story claims, the court fee would be £60 and another £25 if it gets to the hearing stage, why does the echo print this ?, it puts people off starting litigation.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: All too often speeding is the root cause of such damage, otherwise hundreds of people would be claiming similar damage claims. Thin low walled tyres and weak alloys all contribute to the damage limitation, being less effective. The council will use these reasons in court, to show there is enough reasonable doubt, in this claim, resulting in the inevitable verdict of not guilty M'lud[/p][/quote]This would be a civil claim so there is no guilty/not guilty, just a judge would decide whether there is a valid claim and this is on balance of probabilities, you would have to show good photo evidence, measurements of hole, perhaps an experts opinion. Its worth using the court processes to ask what evidence the council will rely upon and as its a council perhaps a freedom of information request, has the council got documented evidence of the inspection just 'days before', what did it saym, etc..you may find they were telling porkies. The person also isn't going to risk 'lots of money' as the story claims, the court fee would be £60 and another £25 if it gets to the hearing stage, why does the echo print this ?, it puts people off starting litigation. andy:)

7:18pm Wed 4 Dec 13

smiffy22 says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?
Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.
Crikey Kim, I thought you were a journalist? Yet you ended (and began) your final sentence "End of."
A bit chavvy :-)
Regards,
Smiffy22
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?[/p][/quote]Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.[/p][/quote]Crikey Kim, I thought you were a journalist? Yet you ended (and began) your final sentence "End of." A bit chavvy :-) Regards, Smiffy22 smiffy22

7:27pm Wed 4 Dec 13

smiffy22 says...

Head_Hunter61 wrote:
The facts are that in Small Claims Court, the verdict it is on the balance of probabilities, the council highways department often do not attend and you get a judgment by default that they then pay almost exactly on the 28th day. If they suspect adverse publicity they pay prior to the court date.

Costs are seldom awarded and the cost of commencing action is only £25. Only if an expert witness is required would you face any significant risk.

The council always turns down any claim, using this strategy means 99% of people just go "oh well" and pay for the cost of repairs. The 1% who take action win in the vast majority of cases.

As for the other comments about speeding etc, oh do behave, you obviously know little about how cars are built, the suspension components are easily damaged by a vehicle with a weight of approximately 1.5 Tons, (its called hitting a 3 inch pothole the force involved is major, especially to components on the "unsprung weight side of the car". To work it out is easy.
The formula for kinetic energy (KE) is expressed in Joules and it is calculated by dividing the total weight of the car by half, then square the speed if 20MPH then (20x 20) and you have the energy level. For example, 1,800 lbs times 400 (20 x20) = 720.000 Joules

That might explain why drivers of smaller cars do not claim as often. Or more likely they just accept the damage and costs as most smaller cars are driven by the young or the old, more successful people drive bigger cars.

Besides, it's not like motorists don't pay enough, in vehicle excise duty, fuel duty and VAT is it?

I really do think some of you need to get out more, you are all so fixated on making your little sniping comments.
I suspect the key to the damage is probably in the "square of the speed", i.e. a little faster means a heck of a lot more energy.
I wonder whether the old adage about people driving the bigger heavier cars feeling more invulnerable and therefore barrelling along regardless is applicable here. You will no doubt have observed this effect every day on the roads.
Maybe the drivers of smaller cars are more observant and more careful, and so get into fewer scrapes.
Regards,
Smiffy22
[quote][p][bold]Head_Hunter61[/bold] wrote: The facts are that in Small Claims Court, the verdict it is on the balance of probabilities, the council highways department often do not attend and you get a judgment by default that they then pay almost exactly on the 28th day. If they suspect adverse publicity they pay prior to the court date. Costs are seldom awarded and the cost of commencing action is only £25. Only if an expert witness is required would you face any significant risk. The council always turns down any claim, using this strategy means 99% of people just go "oh well" and pay for the cost of repairs. The 1% who take action win in the vast majority of cases. As for the other comments about speeding etc, oh do behave, you obviously know little about how cars are built, the suspension components are easily damaged by a vehicle with a weight of approximately 1.5 Tons, (its called hitting a 3 inch pothole the force involved is major, especially to components on the "unsprung weight side of the car". To work it out is easy. The formula for kinetic energy (KE) is expressed in Joules and it is calculated by dividing the total weight of the car by half, then square the speed if 20MPH then (20x 20) and you have the energy level. For example, 1,800 lbs times 400 (20 x20) = 720.000 Joules That might explain why drivers of smaller cars do not claim as often. Or more likely they just accept the damage and costs as most smaller cars are driven by the young or the old, more successful people drive bigger cars. Besides, it's not like motorists don't pay enough, in vehicle excise duty, fuel duty and VAT is it? I really do think some of you need to get out more, you are all so fixated on making your little sniping comments.[/p][/quote]I suspect the key to the damage is probably in the "square of the speed", i.e. a little faster means a heck of a lot more energy. I wonder whether the old adage about people driving the bigger heavier cars feeling more invulnerable and therefore barrelling along regardless is applicable here. You will no doubt have observed this effect every day on the roads. Maybe the drivers of smaller cars are more observant and more careful, and so get into fewer scrapes. Regards, Smiffy22 smiffy22

9:44pm Wed 4 Dec 13

andy:) says...

A lot of comments saying forget it and drive at your own risk, the councils have responsibilty for the roads and a duty pf care to road users, they could equally be responsible if a pothole caused an accident and resulted in deaths and injuries. The trouble is that just let it go is a common attitude and this lets councils and companies get away with shoddy service, civil courts are there to right wrong and get redress, its a simple process, its not about getting compo or a suing culture, its simply about paying for the damage caused.
A lot of comments saying forget it and drive at your own risk, the councils have responsibilty for the roads and a duty pf care to road users, they could equally be responsible if a pothole caused an accident and resulted in deaths and injuries. The trouble is that just let it go is a common attitude and this lets councils and companies get away with shoddy service, civil courts are there to right wrong and get redress, its a simple process, its not about getting compo or a suing culture, its simply about paying for the damage caused. andy:)

9:46am Thu 5 Dec 13

I-say-you-say says...

Kim Gandy wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?
Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.
WE DO NOT PAY ROAD TAX!!!!

There is no such thing! It is VEHICLE tax!

I agree the comment you quoted was not helpful but perhaps before slating others you should check your facts!

Although you are correct that Council tax does cover road repairs but it also covers: libraries, local policing and fire services and maintenance of community services and properties, such as care facilities, schools and cemeteries. It also contributes towards hosting local elections, help for disabled people and support for the elderly and disadvantaged.
[quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?[/p][/quote]Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.[/p][/quote]WE DO NOT PAY ROAD TAX!!!! There is no such thing! It is VEHICLE tax! I agree the comment you quoted was not helpful but perhaps before slating others you should check your facts! Although you are correct that Council tax does cover road repairs but it also covers: libraries, local policing and fire services and maintenance of community services and properties, such as care facilities, schools and cemeteries. It also contributes towards hosting local elections, help for disabled people and support for the elderly and disadvantaged. I-say-you-say

1:26pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

What is a middle aged woman, from Pitsea, doing with a Jag anyway ?
What is a middle aged woman, from Pitsea, doing with a Jag anyway ? Nowthatsworthknowing

2:30pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Ian P says...

Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
What is a middle aged woman, from Pitsea, doing with a Jag anyway ?
The Roller was away being valeted.
[quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: What is a middle aged woman, from Pitsea, doing with a Jag anyway ?[/p][/quote]The Roller was away being valeted. Ian P

4:19pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Minceir. says...

smiffy22 wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote:
You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?
Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.
Crikey Kim, I thought you were a journalist? Yet you ended (and began) your final sentence "End of."
A bit chavvy :-)
Regards,
Smiffy22
Kim Gandy, Journalist? ROFLMAO!
[quote][p][bold]smiffy22[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?[/p][/quote]Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.[/p][/quote]Crikey Kim, I thought you were a journalist? Yet you ended (and began) your final sentence "End of." A bit chavvy :-) Regards, Smiffy22[/p][/quote]Kim Gandy, Journalist? ROFLMAO! Minceir.

2:39pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Alekhine says...

I-say-you-say wrote:
Kim Gandy wrote:
Nowthatsworthknowing wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?
Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.
WE DO NOT PAY ROAD TAX!!!! There is no such thing! It is VEHICLE tax! I agree the comment you quoted was not helpful but perhaps before slating others you should check your facts! Although you are correct that Council tax does cover road repairs but it also covers: libraries, local policing and fire services and maintenance of community services and properties, such as care facilities, schools and cemeteries. It also contributes towards hosting local elections, help for disabled people and support for the elderly and disadvantaged.
It all goes into a big pot and, sadly, there is nothing left to repair the roads at the end of it.

What is going to happen to libraries, local policing, fire services, community services, schools, cemeteries and help for the disabled and ederly when we all get zero rated cars?
[quote][p][bold]I-say-you-say[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kim Gandy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nowthatsworthknowing[/bold] wrote: You use the roads at your own risk, does she need glasses?[/p][/quote]Usual helpful comments. And no we do not use them at our "own risk". Not in the sense you mean it. We pay road tax and council tax so we expect decent roads. End of.[/p][/quote]WE DO NOT PAY ROAD TAX!!!! There is no such thing! It is VEHICLE tax! I agree the comment you quoted was not helpful but perhaps before slating others you should check your facts! Although you are correct that Council tax does cover road repairs but it also covers: libraries, local policing and fire services and maintenance of community services and properties, such as care facilities, schools and cemeteries. It also contributes towards hosting local elections, help for disabled people and support for the elderly and disadvantaged.[/p][/quote]It all goes into a big pot and, sadly, there is nothing left to repair the roads at the end of it. What is going to happen to libraries, local policing, fire services, community services, schools, cemeteries and help for the disabled and ederly when we all get zero rated cars? Alekhine

12:09am Sat 7 Dec 13

smiffy22 says...

Keptquiettillnow wrote:
If they taxed cyclists to use the road then that money could be.....
Bloody cyclists
I expect you will find there are far more tax exempt cars on the road than cycles. Best to engage brain before applying fingers to keyboard :-)
Regards,
Smiffy22
[quote][p][bold]Keptquiettillnow[/bold] wrote: If they taxed cyclists to use the road then that money could be..... Bloody cyclists[/p][/quote]I expect you will find there are far more tax exempt cars on the road than cycles. Best to engage brain before applying fingers to keyboard :-) Regards, Smiffy22 smiffy22

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree