Council Wont Take Responcibility
In October 2012 my scooter got stuck between 2 Barriers when i tried to access the Public Footpath between Worton and Wheatley Rd. The Frame snapped, Cracked and got Scratched and my Battery time usage went from 2hrs+ to 30mins meaning i cant go out to far now. I contacted Hounslow Council and they sent me a claims form which i filled out and sent back with Photos Stabled 2 the forms (inc a Invoice to fix the damage £545). I got a email confirming they Recvd the Photos. In January i emailed the Gentleman dealing with the case several times but they were ignored so i made a Official complaint to the council which i recvd a Confirmation but NEVER got a reply. Then a couple Months ago Cllr Harmer contacted the council for me and they emailed 2 say that as they didn't Recv the forms and didn't hear back from me after emailing me in December they closed the Case (all total rubbish)I filled out the forms again and sent them back and this time they confirmed Recv them and i got a Email saying they passed it over 2 their Claims Department. Then i got a letter last Month from Travelers saying they wouldn't pay out, they said Prior 2 my incident the Footpath was inspected and no defects were Noted and that there is a Width restriction to prevent Motorbikes. I then contacted them to say if there was no defect why did they move the 2nd Barrier back 2 its original spot (as u can see where it used to sit into the ground) after i reported the Incident. I took measurements of the Barriers at Wheatley rd end and they were 134m apart (Scooter can get threw as like Prams) the Measurement between the barriers at Worton Rd are as follows: On the Day of Incident 109m (not wide enough 4 Scooters, wheelchairs of Push chairs) after incident 162m (now wide Enough) I also took photos of the Spots where the Railing was in the ground on day of incident and the damaged Wall next to the Railings (which was like this on the day of Incident) I also mentioned there was no Signs stating the width restrictions and to prevent People with Prams, Wheelchairs or a Mobility scooter to use a Public footpath was discrimination. Now Travelers have emailed me (see below) and what they have said i feel is wrong. All Barriers ive come across are all wide enough for my scooter to get threw it was just this 1 which is obvious the council moved it and placed it to close to the other railing and as soon as it damaged the scooter they moved it back and NOW i can get threw. I am left with a scooter i can only go as far as Tesco and Back so i am back to not going out again. I cant afford 2 ave it fixed or buy a 2nd Hand replacement and the council don't care at all. If anyone has any advice or help they can give me it be appreciated. This is the Email from Travelers:Insured: London Borough Of Hounslow Policy Number: UCPOP3916388 Claim Number: 829255 Claim Handler: Moira Taylor Date Of Loss: 08/10/2012 Dear Mr Anderson Thank you for your email of 5th August 2013. We note your comments. While we have no reason to believe that it is or has ever been the intention of the council for these restrictions to discriminate against any section of society, the matter of whether or not the width restrictions could be considered discriminatory is unfortunately not something we are able to comment upon as it falls outside the scope of the damage claim itself. You are pursuing a claim for damage to your mobility scooter which you attempted to drive through a footpath with a width restricted designed to prevent vehicles, such as motor cycles, from driving down it. The barriers are similar to those in use in many places across the country and their design is not unusual. Their purpose range from things like crowd measures (such as preventing people running out from a blind alley onto a main road) to things like preventing small vehicles and motor cycles from inappropriately using footpaths and alleyways making a convenient cut through and thereby creating damage to footpaths not designed to take their weight or, more importantly, to ensure the safety of pedestrians. The use of barriers in this manner is not unusual and not something for which the Council could be considered to have been negligent. As the barriers are on a footpath there is unfortunately no duty to sign post the width of the barriers. The requirements to sign post on the road relate to the fact that vehicles will be travelling at speed and the difficulty in judging the size of the gap in relation to the size of a vehicle when taking into account the full extent of the vehicle (including wing mirrors) and while a vehicle is in motion. No such requirement exists on a public footpath as people will be moving at significantly slower speeds and will have a greater awareness of their own width in relation to the gap they are attempting to negotiation. Similarly with a mobility scooter it would be expected that you would be moving at considerably less speed and, given the size of a mobility scooter is much smaller than motor vehicle, would allow the user much greater awareness of the width in relation to the gap. Unfortunately the fact that there is no sign confirming the width of the gap cannot be considered an act of negligence or breach of duty on the part of the Council. While the width of the entry is restricted, the size of the gap is clearly apparent and it would be for the person entering the gap to assess whether or not there was sufficient space for them to pass the barrier successfully. The barriers are there to be seen. You have commented that the barriers have been moved back which you state is proof of a defect. Whether or not the barriers have now been moved unfortunately does not establish a defect. The inspection would be to check if there had been any damage to the barriers or if they had become loose or were otherwise creating a foreseeable hazard. Additionally the fact that the damage to the wall has not been noted on the inspection would not affect the validity of the inspection of either the barriers or the pathway nor does it create a hazard to the public. Our understanding is also that the wall is we believe the boundary to private property and therefore would not be considered by the council on their inspection unless loose bricks had fallen onto the public highway; the condition of the wall would not be something the Council would respond to. Whether or not the gap between the two barriers prevented access by mobility scooters and whether or not that could be considered discriminatory (though we have no reason to believe that there was ever any intention to discriminate) is unfortunately not something about which we are able to comment and any comments you feel need to be made in connection with the size of the gap going forward will need to be directed to the Council. However with regard to the claim, regardless of whether or not this is an issue the Council need to address; the damage to your mobility scooter must be considered separately and unfortunately we cannot agree that the damage has been caused either by negligence of breach of duty on the part of the Council. We appreciate that our decision is disappointing, but we are only able to consider the damage claim on the basis of legal liability, for which we can find no evidence. Our decision therefore remains unaltered. We regret we are unable to offer you any financial assistance on this occasion. We must remind you that you are entitled to seek legal advice in respect of your claim and you may wish to discuss your claim with a solicitor, Citizens Advice Bureau or other legal representative. Yours sincerely Moira TaylorClaims NegotiatorTel: +44 1737 787 242Fax: +441737 786 720Email: uksirteam@travelers.com
Simon Anderson ● 4377d0 Comments