Sad story and word of caution
- Thread starter H Rafiq
- Start date
Update 4: They gave the car back to me, still making the knocking sound. They hadn’t fixed the issue. Drove it home and a loud came clunk from the engine bay followed by a lot of noise on acceleration. The engine mount had failed. Engine visibly slanted in the engine bay. Returned back to the garage who are saying they don’t believe it was the accident that caused the engine mount to deteriorate/fail. They need an independent assessor to come out to check it. 
Who are these cowboysUpdate 4: They gave the car back to me, still making the knocking sound. They hadn’t fixed the issue. Drove it home and a loud came clunk from the engine bay followed by a lot of noise on acceleration. The engine mount had failed. Engine visibly slanted in the engine bay. Returned back to the garage who are saying they don’t believe it was the accident that caused the engine mount to deteriorate/fail. They need an independent assessor to come out to check it.
FMG in Crewe. Admiral use them for insurance repairs. Had no choice but to let the car go there. If I’d have known beforehand… I’ve paid my excess. If I take the car elsewhere to be repaired now, I’ll be out of pocket even more. Sounds like an expensive job too.Who are these cowboys
Good luck with your claim against the council fingers crossed for you 
- be aware that in situations such as this, they’ll be in no hurry to settle up and it may take many months before you’re compensated.
- be aware that in situations such as this, they’ll be in no hurry to settle up and it may take many months before you’re compensated.
It’s unbelievable how a badly maintained road has caused you so much hassle, I hope you get everything sorted soon
The cars being sorted, and will undergo an independent inspect from a 3rd party once all repairs are completed. Hopefully the car never sets tyre in that place again after that.
Council have rejected my small claim, stating they routinely inspect the road, 3 times a year
And signs were put in place. I have a dash cam. There were no signs in place. And there were 2 crashes at the same place in the road in between their last inspect and my crash…
Not sure whether it’s financially beneficial to take them to court. After consulting with legal advisers, the want £2,000 up front before they begin the investigation
The excess I paid was only £750, even though the damages have come to >£6,000 according to the garage invoices.
Council have rejected my small claim, stating they routinely inspect the road, 3 times a year
And signs were put in place. I have a dash cam. There were no signs in place. And there were 2 crashes at the same place in the road in between their last inspect and my crash…Not sure whether it’s financially beneficial to take them to court. After consulting with legal advisers, the want £2,000 up front before they begin the investigation
The excess I paid was only £750, even though the damages have come to >£6,000 according to the garage invoices.
Did you claim off the council ? Use a no win no fee company, seems to me you have good evidence in your dashcam and if that road sunk after 4 months there is definitely a problem. I used to be a groundwork and that is not normal wear and tear.
I haven’t pursued it any further to be honest. I tried again but they came back saying “As per our previous correspondence when the area was last routinely inspected on the 08/06/2022 prior to your incident, no defect was apparent or actionable.
Enquiries were received regarding the dip, a sign was in situ "Road Liable to Subsidence" and resurfacing was to be undertaken between 31/10/2022 to 06/11/2022.
Our client was aware of the dip and a sign was in place to warn of the road and our client was arranging resurfacing of the road.
We have already referred to section 58 of the act, and this deals with the Highway Authorities obligations to carry out inspections of the highway taking into account various considerations such as frequency of usage, character and location. Basically, providing our clients can demonstrate that they do operate a valid and reasonable inspection system, and that when a location was last inspected a defect was not present then they will be able to maintain a defence to a claim that is pursued.”
so I just left it
I would not leave it mate, if you ask a no win no fee company they will advise you if it’s worth pursuing. Main thing is your cars fixed and you’re ok. Good luck for the future bud.I haven’t pursued it any further to be honest. I tried again but they came back saying “As per our previous correspondence when the area was last routinely inspected on the 08/06/2022 prior to your incident, no defect was apparent or actionable.
Enquiries were received regarding the dip, a sign was in situ "Road Liable to Subsidence" and resurfacing was to be undertaken between 31/10/2022 to 06/11/2022.
Our client was aware of the dip and a sign was in place to warn of the road and our client was arranging resurfacing of the road.
We have already referred to section 58 of the act, and this deals with the Highway Authorities obligations to carry out inspections of the highway taking into account various considerations such as frequency of usage, character and location. Basically, providing our clients can demonstrate that they do operate a valid and reasonable inspection system, and that when a location was last inspected a defect was not present then they will be able to maintain a defence to a claim that is pursued.”
so I just left it
Similar threads
