Hourly Rate for Own Time

[blank]

I'm in the process of claiming from a local council for damage to my car when entering a car park.

The speed hump (rubbery bolted down one) was loose and had a protruding bolt which damaged the side skirt.

I reported it to them the same day, with photos and video.

Being a council they're very slow, but I have now been sent a claim form to complete.


I replaced the side skirt about a week after the damage. I have the invoice for the parts which I got at trade price of about £150. I replaced it myself.


My question is what, if anything, should I use as an hourly rate for my labour replacing it? A garage would be £100 per hour I'd guess, but I'm not a garage.

I feel like I've done my bit to minimise the costs (it would be a £500+ job at a garage easily). If I can only claim the actual cost of the part then fair enough, but feels like I should be able to get something for the couple of hours I spent replacing it and the hundreds I saved compared to a garage/body shop.

[Doofus]

Take the money, move on. They owe you for the damage, not for your living.

You're not actually out of pocket, unless you lost income for the time you spent fixing it, which you didn't.

[MDMA .]

Say you’re on the basic living PH salary of £100k a year. You do a 3 day week and work 4 hours a day, just bill them the standard £160p/h for time lost.

[Aretnap]

In principle you can claim the full market cost of the repairs - whether you actually pay a garage to do them or whether you bodge it up yourself with gaffer tape and parts from a scrapyard makes no odds to the amount you can claim.

In practice you might encounter more resistance from the council without an actual receipt for repairs. Have they actually admitted liability and is the firm just about the amount that you are claiming, it is it also asking for evidence to support your claim that they are liable?

[richhead]

unless you can supply a vat registered receipt for your time then they will ignore it, your spare time is not worth anything.

[bladebloke]

Aretnap said:

In principle you can claim the full market cost of the repairs - whether you actually pay a garage to do them or whether you bodge it up yourself with gaffer tape and parts from a scrapyard makes no odds to the amount you can claim.

In practice you might encounter more resistance from the council without an actual receipt for repairs. Have they actually admitted liability and is the firm just about the amount that you are claiming, it is it also asking for evidence to support your claim that they are liable?

I’m not sure where you get that principle from. The actual principle is that you can claim for your losses – i.e. what it has cost you. So unless OP can prove that the time he spent doing the repairs himself somehow actually cost him something (e.g. he couldn’t work one day, as opposed to choosing not to work one day, because he needed to do the repairs then) there is no claim for his time.

[0ddball]

I presume you used your own tools to do the job? So don't forget a percentage for wear and tear on your ratchet.

Also, sounds like thirsty work, so you might want to claim for that cuppa you had half way though the job too.

[trickywoo]

They will refer you to their insurer who will refuse the claim in a standard multi page proforma.

The basis will be that regardless of the state you found it in it would have been inspected in the statutory period (probably sometime in the previous two months) and found to be in good order.

It’s up to you if you pursue it after that via small claims or whatever they call it now.

[Aretnap]

bladebloke said:

Aretnap said:

In principle you can claim the full market cost of the repairs - whether you actually pay a garage to do them or whether you bodge it up yourself with gaffer tape and parts from a scrapyard makes no odds to the amount you can claim.

In practice you might encounter more resistance from the council without an actual receipt for repairs. Have they actually admitted liability and is the firm just about the amount that you are claiming, it is it also asking for evidence to support your claim that they are liable?

I m not sure where you get that principle from. The actual principle is that you can claim for your losses i.e. what it has cost you. So unless OP can prove that the time he spent doing the repairs himself somehow actually cost him something (e.g. he couldn t work one day, as opposed to choosing not to work one day, because he needed to do the repairs then) there is no claim for his time.

It isn't actually. The loss you're claiming for is the diminution in value of your property - ie the difference between what your car would have sold for five minutes before the accident, and what it would sell for five minutes after the accident. The repair cost is merely a measure of that diminution - ie the law makes the assumption that a £10,000 car which needs £2000 of repairs is worth about £8000.

As the repair cost is merely a measure of your losses, it follows that it doesn't actually matter whether you've paid that cost with cash or not. If your car suffers mostly cosmetic damage which would reasonably cost £2000 to repair, and you decide just to shrug and live with it, you are still entitled to £2000 as compensation for the fact that you now have a less nice, less valuable car. And similarly if you repair it yourself on the cheap, you can still claim the cost of a professional repair.

Coles v Hetherton is the key case law on this. https://fenchurchlaw.com/coles-v-hetherton-implica...

[bladebloke]

Aretnap said:

It isn't actually. The loss you're claiming for is the diminution in value of your property - ie the difference between what your car would have sold for five minutes before the accident, and what it would sell for five minutes after the accident. The repair cost is merely a measure of that diminution - ie the law makes the assumption that a £10,000 car which needs £2000 of repairs is worth about £8000.

As the repair cost is merely a measure of your losses, it follows that it doesn't actually matter whether you've paid that cost with cash or not. If your car suffers mostly cosmetic damage which would reasonably cost £2000 to repair, and you decide just to shrug and live with it, you are still entitled to £2000 as compensation for the fact that you now have a less nice, less valuable car. And similarly if you repair it yourself on the cheap, you can still claim the cost of a professional repair.

Coles v Hetherton is the key case law on this. https://fenchurchlaw.com/coles-v-hetherton-implica...

I hadn’t come across that law before. And I’ve only had a quick look at the article you linked to and one other. But on the basis of all that, I stand corrected – thank you!

[OIC]

It's 1 case from 2014.

Easily dismissed by a Judge in court if they didn't have ice cold milk with their cornflakes that morning.

Plus, nothing in that case relates to a private individual trying to charge for their time, which would be seen as utterly stupid by any court.

Apart from all that, super.

[paul_c123]

OIC said:

It's 1 case from 2014.

Easily dismissed by a Judge in court if they didn't have ice cold milk with their cornflakes that morning.

Plus, nothing in that case relates to a private individual trying to charge for their time, which would be seen as utterly stupid by any court.

Apart from all that, super.

Where case law is used to clarify a point of law, one case is sufficient. And it does seem to directly address the point being made in the above posts.

[bladebloke]

OIC said:

It's 1 case from 2014.

Easily dismissed by a Judge in court if they didn't have ice cold milk with their cornflakes that morning.

Plus, nothing in that case relates to a private individual trying to charge for their time, which would be seen as utterly stupid by any court.

Apart from all that, super.

Firstly, it’s a Court of Appeal decision. So binding on all cases in the county court and High Court,, and persuasive for future Court of Appeal decisions. The only way it’s really likely to get overturned is if some claimant/defendant takes a similar point all the way to the Supreme Court.

Secondly, did you even read what Aretnap kindly posted? The point is that the OP would not be claiming for his own time. He would be claiming for the diminution in value of his asset which got damaged, assessed at the moment it happened, with the measure of damage being the open market cost of repair.

Apart from all that, super.

[EW109]

bladebloke said:

Firstly, it s a Court of Appeal decision. So binding on all cases in the county court and High Court,, and persuasive for future Court of Appeal decisions. The only way it s really likely to get overturned is if some claimant/defendant takes a similar point all the way to the Supreme Court.

Secondly, did you even read what Aretnap kindly posted? The point is that the OP would not be claiming for his own time. He would be claiming for the diminution in value of his asset which got damaged, assessed at the moment it happened, with the measure of damage being the open market cost of repair.

Apart from all that, super.

Court of Appeal decisions bind the Court of Appeal as well -- so it is the last word unless and until someone is prepared to fight a case to the Supreme Court.

[agtlaw]

See Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd [1944] KB 718 for exceptions.

[OIC]

Yeah, wot he said, lol.