Should I appeal a Council decision?

[dougie]

I appreciated all the kind words and advice and here's an update, probably one of a few more to come!

The Council have now informed me that it's not their responsibility but the owner of the utility cover. In this case it is BT and Open Reach in particular. Anyone ever tried talking to Open Reach by phone? Seems almost impossible and I don't think their website is very helpful. With all the drop down choices about why you want to talk to them, there is nothing that relates to my issue with them.

The Council did imply I was right to pursue someone, as a matter of principle! IN any event they have inspected the road back last winter and found nothing was wrong and have since confirmed there have been no other complaints about it. I'm quite prepared to take someone to Court over this; although it's only £35 I simply don't think it's right for a cyclist to have an accident like that.

Onwards and upwards

[AlaninWales]

Haven't been all the way through it, but does this help?
http://openreachengineer.com/complaints-bt/

[thirdcrank]

As a matter of principle, I'd suggest that it's not a good idea to do any sort of negotiation by phone and that applies with even greater force if you are dealing with a big company: there's no record of what's said and in any case, you are unlikely to be talking to anybody with the authority to act on behalf of the company.

I think it's best to write, keeping a copy of all the correspondence.

[dougie]

Haven't been all the way through it, but does this help?
http://openreachengineer.com/complaints-bt/

Thanks, that is helpful and I'll keep that tucked up my sleeve for when I need it.

[PaulCumbria]

Just for info, I understand that much inspection is done from the driving seat of a car! I discovered this when I worked for a walking lobby group, and was astonished to discover that most footways (pavements) are inspected in the same fashion!
And manhole covers are now called inspection covers.

[donnieban]

The BT frame presents a hazard that should have been been picked up by the Roads Authority during their inspections. The defective apparatus should have been highlighted to the Utility - BT. This would appear to be a long standing hazard that should have been picked up during any robust inspection process. The fact that it wasnt suggests that the inspection falls short of Statutory requirements and can only otherwise be interpreted to be flawed.

The relevant question to be asked directs to the the Roads Authorities failure in their Duty of Care - what intervention levels are actionable in respect to defective apparatus? Ask for a copy of their Inspection Policy and refer to the actionable intervention levels for defective ironwork. Much of that is academic given patently the cover does not match the frame which should be a source of embarassment to all concerned.

I would suggest that you persist and would encourage that others lend some support to your claim in the context of complaints to the Roads Authority - there but for the grace of god go I....

db

[Vorpal]

The relevant legislation http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/contents

It is not completely clear how much authority the local council might have to make BT fix it, but they may have something written into a mutual contract. That said, the linked legislation makes it clear that BT has a duty to maintain their installation in a way that it won't harm anyone.

If it were me, I would do a little research (maybe ask some friends who work for BT?) and find out what the correct person or department is to which I should send a letter. I would then send a recorded letter, informing them of the defect (include the pictures), the standards that it failed to meet, a brief description of the accident, and the costs incurred. I would request reimbursement for actual costs, a fee for reclamation, a copy of their inspection report, safey audit, and the deviation (departure from standards) report, which presumably should have been done when it was installed. I would copy the local council highways department (and note the cc on the letter).

IMO, this will prompt them to fix it, though getting reimbursement for costs will probably be like pulling teeth.

[dougie]

Here's a quick update as the saga rolls on...

Contacting BT Openreach is not easy but I thought I would follow their website route. I registered my complaint on 27th September and there was silence until yesterday 9th October before I got an acknowledgement - this is appalling. I have to call a number to take it to the next stage. Thankfully it is an 0800 number, which I assume is still free?

I have, tucked up my sleeve, are some of the suggestions made already on this thread, for which I am grateful.

TBH it is easy to see why people just don't bother to make claims against big organisations because of the hassle. While I understand they need to guard against shysters out to fleece them for fictitious claims, making contact is not made easy. A part of me thinks it is best to avoid their processes altogether - I am the injured party - they can follow my process. By this I mean I send them an invoice, covering letter, evidence. If they don't pay, simply go to Court. But on balance I will follow the process, for now.

I also know I have the CTC for back-up and advice, a friend suggested the CTC and there's always the local radio's consumer programme where they like getting involved with this kind of thing.

I'll keep you posted and thanks again for everyone's interest in this ....

[mjr]

0800 should be free from landlines still. Not from mobiles.

I think I'd be pursuing both the council and BT for this. I don't know what you need to do to get BT to pay out, but for a council, you need to show they should have known about it and acted to fix it. If it's been there that long, the council should have spotted this defect and made BT fix it. So I'd appeal and then if they still refuse, say I'm considering small claims court, which immediately puts their backs up: I think as a corporate body, councils cannot appear in person and have to hire solicitors even for small claims. Please don't abuse it, but it's a useful advantage for the little guy to have.

I reported roadworks being left in a dangerous state, then they expanded and I rode over the new section and unswept road planings on a corner shredded the tyre. The council contractor eventually made a one-off payment to me without admitting fault which paid for new tyre, tube and the tools that I wrecked trying to fix the damage.

[Pugwash]

I would suggest you simply inform BT ( by registered post ) that unless you hear from them in 28 days you will take them to the small claims court for compensation + your costs.

This should concentrate some minds pretty quickly and I would suggest they will pay to avoid any legal costs.

[Pickled Pig]

I would suggest you simply inform BT ( by registered post ) that unless you hear from them in 28 days you will take them to the small claims court for compensation + your costs.

This should concentrate some minds pretty quickly and I would suggest they will pay to avoid any legal costs.

+1^^^

I also personally know someone who successfully claimed for their time in preparing their case at the unqualified solicitors clerk rate which, three years ago, was £111 / hour http://www.wigg.co.uk/fee_earner_grades.asp - another incentive to settle quickly

[snibgo]

Naturally, the Council blames BT and vice versa.

Some other legislation that may be relevant: New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, especially s72:

... (4) If it appears to the street authority that a failure by an undertaker to comply with his duties under this Part as to reinstatement is causing danger to users of the street, the authority may carry out the necessary works without first giving notice and may recover from him the costs reasonably incurred by them in doing so.

To me, it's obvious that when a street has a fault that makes it dangerous to a cyclist, it should be fixed. When the fault is due to bad construction, compensation should be paid.

Alas, I fear that street authorities don't have a clue (or don't care) about what causes danger to cyclists. Their inspection techniques are propbably based soley on damage to cars. Because cars are more important than people.

[Pugwash]

Did you get anywhere with this ?

[dougie]

Did you get anywhere with this ?

My apologies for not getting back sooner. The issue rolls on and unfortunately I've let it slip but will pick it back up; afterall claims can be made up to 6 years following an incident.

I found contacting BT Openreach to be a frustrating experience initially. No obvious helpline number (ironic?) and had to go via their website. Again it was a case of reporting a problem and using a drop down menu. Needless to say none of the choices quite described the problem. After I had submitted the report, I had an acknowledgement 5 days later with a request to call them, which I did and things have looked up.

As a result of that I received the following day, a claim form. The covering letter gives details of the person who will deal with the matter, direct line number and email address. So this is looking hopeful.

Interestingly a couple of days ago I cycled the same way (seldom go that way) and it was clear some repair work has taken place around the whole inspection cover. Now if there was "no defect" as decided by the Council, you wouldn't expect such a through repair to take place, would you?

Here's my original blog showing the mishap: http://thecyclehub.net/not-the-best-start/