Vehicle crossing causing vehicle damage. Is council responsible for construction?

[mrsaneperson]

I have a property that has quite a "valley" [dip] between where the road meets the property driveway.The driveway crosses over a council constructed footpath. Tenant complains that his sump often scrapes the bottom even at a very moderate speed. I have noticed it myself over the years & one has to drive in very slowly or the engine sump or front of the car will scrape along the concrete.
Its a busy road & when one needs to backout the situation also impedes been able to navigate quickly in order to join into the ever increasing traffic flow.

Council say that its the owners responsibility to "maintain" any "vehicle crossing".But this isnt a maintenance issue ,its a construction issue as the "valley" where the property drive & road meet is too deep.

Any thoughts?

[Leftette]

How long has it been there? If a while, blaming construction won't carry much weight. Your problem, in other words.

[Leftette]

Rent to tenants who drive a Navara, Hilux, <insert high ground-clearance vehicle here>

[Keys]

Do the tenants have road legal cars? IE not too low?

[donna]

I see where you're going with this Keys e.g. are they petrol heads with modified vehicles

mrsaneperson can you alter your driveway to improve the crossing? It would be hard to get the council to do anything willingly if you can modify your driveway to solve the issue.

cheers,

Donna

[Leftette]

I have a neighbour who's drive entrance is the same. Every time he comes and goes you hear a crunch of the plastic underside of his (new) Audi. What if you poured some concrete in the hollow? It would look AWFUL but it might do the trick, until the council sees it and asks for it to be removed.

[Gladdynook]

Could this dip be because over the years the council has raised the road with multiple layers of seal? If so, I would suspect they should rebuild the crossing to an acceptable level. Other options could be to place a wooden half round post in the dip?

please don't do what a neighbour did once and use steel plates to bridge the dip. the noise they made as they drove over was unbelievable!!!!

[mrsaneperson]

Could this dip be because over the years the council has raised the road with multiple layers of seal? If so, I would suspect they should rebuild the crossing to an acceptable level. Other options could be to place a wooden half round post in the dip?

please don't do what a neighbour did once and use steel plates to bridge the dip. the noise they made as they drove over was unbelievable!!!!

Thanks for the replys guys. The tenant just has a stock standard car & has been there for quite a few years. The dip in the vehicle crosing has always been there but may have gotten more accentuated when retarring occured a year back from memory. Though i havent spoken directly with the council engineer who did apparently come out & take a look .I was told when i rang back today that "council have no responsibility" for vehicle crossings . When i queried this further a council person called me back & became extremely irate & said if i didnt like the information she was giving me i could legally challenge it.This person was condescending, rude & "challenging" in their manner. Why on earth become antagonistic to any ratepayer asking simple questions & then provoke them into legally challenging the council? It is unbelievable that someone like that is working for council.
If council are responsible for the path ,the road & its construction ; how can they not be also be responsible to make sure the "valley" at the crossing between the drive & the road is not too great a depth causing vehicle damage?

[Davo36]

"mrsaneperson", to me you are anything but. So I have you on my ignore list but every now and then I have a look at a post of yours to see what you're banging on about lately.

Why on earth become antagonistic to any ratepayer asking simple questions & then provoke them into legally challenging the council?

Anyone? Anyone?

& said if i didnt like the information she was giving me i could legally challenge it.

Off you go then, sue them. And keep us posted

[jimO]

It is unbelievable that someone like that is working for council.

i thought that was the only sort of person they employed

[mrsaneperson]

"mrsaneperson", to me you are anything but. So I have you on my ignore list but every now and then I have a look at a post of yours to see what you're banging on about lately.

Anyone? Anyone?




Off you go then, sue them. And keep us posted

Hopefully Davo you will never ever be employed or even "remotely" "connected" to the council except via a high voltage wire as you are always "chaffing at the bit" whenever you dont agree with something .You would undoubtedly add more burgeoning council debt with your irrational behaviour & misplaced pride..

Incidentally Davo i recently received my CCC for work that involved a residential building with safe & sanitary certified "unauthorised works" done by a previous owner. Something you told me i would never get.LOL, you are so wrong about many things!!! I went about it rationally & dilligently & received building consent & finally a CCC.All perfectly above board & legal.

Its not my scene to launch into lawsuits of any kind and its very stupid of a council employee to encourage any ratepayer to "willy nilly" legally challenge council, especially at such a preliminary stage of my enquiry. I was only enquiring, trying to find an answer & wanting to sort out a situation .
If council are not responsible for "vehicle crossings" thats fine, i just like to understand the reasoning behind it. No one should have to tolerate any condescension ,rudeness & antagonism by ANY council employee.
The mandate of any council employee should be "We work for the betterment of the community" sadly that mandate is generally missing & their is reckless disregard for the ratepayers whom they are supposed to be serving..

[Maccachic]

. No one should have to tolerate any condescension ,rudeness & antagonism by ANY council employee.
The mandate of any council employee should be "We work for the betterment of the community" sadly that mandate is generally missing & their is reckless disregard for the ratepayers whom they are supposed to be serving..

I guess the question you need to ask yourself did you act resonably in your conversation with said employee?

[Davo36]

The mandate of any council employee should be "We work for the betterment of the community" sadly that mandate is generally missing & their is reckless disregard for the ratepayers whom they are supposed to be serving.

See the thing is you just don't read. This is the very point I've been making on this forum for several years.

And if you did read, you'd understand that I'd never ever want to work for the council. I'd rather poke out my eyes with a blunt stick.

But I won't argue with you any more, no point.

By the way, you should win that crossing issue. I know what approach I'd take, but then, you're the expert.

[Caconz]

[QUOTECouncil say that its the owners responsibility to "maintain" any "vehicle crossing".But this isnt a maintenance issue ,its a construction issue as the "valley" where the property drive & road meet is too deep. Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]

I hope you have this resolved by now, but knowing how quickly councils respond maybe not...

What you are talking about if I understand correctly is the breakover angle on the crossing. The council should have in its district plan or subdivision documentation the guidlelines for how these are to be constructed. If not NZTA has guidelines as well, but keep in mind these were set in the 1960's when vehicles rode much higher.

Most councils in NZ consider all of the vehicle crossing/driveway to be the property owners responsibility as they are the only ones to benefit from the crossing. NZTA state in their funding manual that "Remedial work for sub-standard entrances should be at the expense of the property owner"" which limits councils ability to pay

The footpath is a council asset, owned and maintained by them. Any work done to the footpath will require a road opening notice if it needs to be altered by yourself

As this sounds like the issue was not caused by recent construction works I would think the best you would be able to achieve from a council is a 'çost share arrangement' where they would contribute to the footpath portion and you would be responsible for the rest of the cost.

FYI for comments posted above resealing of a road in an urban situation in a 2 coat seal will only raise the road by approx 20mm so unlikely to make much difference in ride height and access angles for vehicles

HTH

[mrsaneperson]

Thanks for commenting caconz. This issue i have just left alone and tenants just have to drive in slowly otherwise their engine sump can hit the concrete path. Council weren't coming to the party.I noticed several other owners most probably tackled the problem themselves by placing an extra layer of tarmac between crossing and path