A FRENCH Island pensioner who says Mornington Peninsula Shire’s negligence cost him $368 for new tyres has had his refund claim belatedly paid by the council’s insurers.
John Woolley said protruding spikes on star pickets “sliced the walls” of two tyres near roadworks on Graydens Rd, Hastings, last month.
Furious, he called the RACV which towed his VW Transporter to Balnarring Motors where the tyres were replaced.
“The $368 does not include all the inconvenience and time wasting caused by the incident,” he said.
The spikes – 600mm in from the edge of the bitumen – were a hazard to motorists and their removal since the incident proves it, he said.
“It was a clear case of negligence by the shire or the roads contractor and the council had neglected its duty of care.”
The council’s insurer, Echelon Claims Services, agreed the claim was based on “negligence” – but pointed out that the term weakened Mr Woolley’s grounds for compensation.
“As the council’s public liability claims managers we have an obligation to only recommend compensation when a clear legal liability has been established as the money you are seeking would come directly from ratepayers …,” it stated in a letter to Mr Woolley. “Under the Road Management Act 2004 council is only required to inspect roads and/or effect repairs [under] its Road Management Plan [once every 12 months].
“[The Act] requires individuals … seeking compensation for vehicle damage arising from the condition of the roadway to pay the first $1380 of any claim – regardless of issues of liability.”
It then rejected Mr Woolley’s $368 claim as being below the threshold.
Undaunted, Mr Woolley fought on. “I was not going to let them treat me like a nobody,” he said, adding that the shire should assess damages claims on an individual basis.
Help arrived on Friday, after Cerberus ward councillor Kate Roper took on Mr Woolley’s case and helped negotiate a settlement with the shire’s legal department.
“We reviewed the situation and agreed to compensate Mr Woolley for his new tyres,” she said.
“It was an unfortunate incident and it didn’t seem fair [that he had to pay] as he was not doing the wrong thing.”
Mr Woolley was elated by the decision but believed the shire “should have paid out in the first place”.
