Council Claim, fuel leak on highway following breakdown |
Council Claim, fuel leak on highway following breakdown |
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 13:14
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 16 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,891 |
Hi, my wife recently received a surprise email from her car insurance regarding a claim from the local council for attending and cleaning a diesel spillage from a town road some 9 months after the alleged incident occurred.
The car insurance company just wants to pay it. We were unaware of any claims made against us previously nor any communication regarding the incident. The 'incident' as such did take place, my wife's car broke down and RAC attended. They stopped the diesel fuel leak which was small dripping from one of the injectors and reassured us that driving was safe to travel approx 15 miles home. No need to report to emergency services. My wife had however already contacted 101 number to explain her position as she was concerned if the car was of risk to other motorists, it was a dark and cold January evening. The council claim highways maintenance attended to clean area, but on the opposite side of the road and a little further on (opposite direction of travel) from where the incident (breakdown) took place and also that her car was involved in a collision at the scene. These details are both false and inaccurate. Advice is required as to how to properly respond and counter this claim and also how to get her car insurance to help and protect her and not just to pay out. Many thanks skypp |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 13:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 13:31
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Why are the details false and inaccurate?
And if so, what proof or evidence have you of the inaccuracy? Seems OTT for a cleanup crew to be dispatched for a minor diesel leak that was small enough to let her drive home.... a major one would not have and not sure RAC would have patched it. But that doesn't mean that trigger words such as diesel spill didn't trigger a response, didn't trigger the call out. After that, council will always want to charge someone. |
|
|
Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 19:03
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Given the discrepancies it must be at least a possibility that your wife's details got mixed up with someone else's. I once had a call from my insurance company (not a claims company) about an accident I supposedly had which was supposedly my fault and I knew nothing about, I told them exactly that. Never heard back and when I enquired they told me it had been confirmed as a case of mistaken identity.
So maybe the council attended a separate incident and either the council, the police or the insurance company mixed up the details. This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 - 19:04 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 09:49
Post
#4
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 7 Joined: 16 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,891 |
Hi DancingDad
The false bit was that in the claim to my Wifes insurance company the council stated that her vehicle was involved in a RTA. It was a breakdown only and RAC called out. The inaccuracy was no diesel spillage just a small leak from the cars engine. Wife was worried the car might be a fire risk. The post code and house number given by the council was a little further down the road and on the other side of the road. The council claim that the RTA involved Council property. Don't know if they are referring to the road in their statement. Emergency response vehicle sent and road de greased out of hours.This is fine if they could find any diesel but not if they clean the wrong side of the road in the wrong place and it was only a small leak not a spill. My wife only contacted 101 to alert them to the risk to her car and other motorists in case of fire. Not a 999 situation. it took the council 9 months to put in a claim for this. Is it worth fighting this claim, or should she let the insurance pay out? Thanks skypp |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 14:45
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Errors in the letter don’t provide a defence to claim for what should be obvious reasons.
What may provide a defence is (for example) they claim damage was caused in place A when the car was in place B because clearly the car didn’t cause THAT damage. The fact they may have got confused between a mechanical issue and an RTA isn’t relevant really. I’d phone and clarify if the claim is actually for damage caused or for the call out, if it’s for damage ask for some proof of the damage and see if it’s from your car or something else! -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2019 - 16:37
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
Don't suppose you have any details on the RTA?
Even if there actually was one? To me the inaccuracies get towards a defence of "wasn't me, was someone else" But ….. |
|
|
Thu, 24 Oct 2019 - 19:21
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Don't suppose you have any details on the RTA? Even if there actually was one? To me the inaccuracies get towards a defence of "wasn't me, was someone else" That's my thinking. I would try and get some more details about the alleged RTA, it might then become clear that the council has mixed up two different incidents. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:15 |