DaveO wrote:
I think there is an obvious issue of potential scam billing going on here - charging for cleaning up an oil leak when there was none for example or blatant over charging but what I don't understand is why they are allowed to charge at all.
Who has legislated that that these companies have a right to chase motorists for money?
Well, the article states that
"The Highways Agency says when repairs are needed after a breakdown or collision it is not right that the costs should be borne by the taxpayer and therefore they or their contractors will seek to recover the cost of repairs from insurance companies or individuals where appropriate."
Going back to my original example, if you smash into my garden wall, I can claim for the damage, and so if you smash into the Highways Agency's wall, ditto. If the HA has a contract with some company to repair walls, then I would agree on the face of it there is no way that company could make a claim. It isn't an insurance company, and so the HA's rights can't be subrogated to it, and it has not had any of its own property damaged, and can't claim for pure "economic loss".
This suggests that there must be some form of legislation that permits the charge, such as that which makes you liable for towing and storage charges if the police have your car recovered from an accident.
DaveO wrote:
This isn't an issue of should motorists pay for any damage caused in an accident or not. That is a different debate.
of course it is, maybe from a different angle, but exactly the same issue.
rover49 wrote:
Oi, leave ambulance chasers alone
Yes do - tied to the barrier to await hopefully frequent collisions.
