Gritter damage - Take to court?

[Mansize_tissue]

Good day chaps.

Back in November my E39 was victim to a gritter dispensing, what seems to have been, way too course a grit, with way too high a spread. I've got stone chips now on the bonnet, both front wings, all 4 doors, wing mirrors, a few on the roof and a windscreen which is covered in them. I've got 2 quotes for the damage, both within £50 of each other at ~£3700.

My back and fourth with the Council has resulted in them denying negligence, and without proof of which my public liability claim with them for damages is useless.

Either this damage was caused maliciously (I hope not) or was the result of negligence, surely if not it wouldn't have happened?

I drive past gritters all the time, and always slow down. This particular road was 60, I slowed to 30, and still it sounded like gravel was being chucked at my car.


Now I'm left with the choice of giving up, or filing a money claim against them and let the Courts deal with it. Court fees will be around £300 I believe, which I'd rather avoid losing if this case is a total loss.


The bumper and half the bonnet isn't stickered due to the amount of chips and time involved.

 

[Mansize_tissue]

Thanks for the responses so far.

The things that look like leaves are cut-up post it notes pointing at the biggest of the 'fresh' chips from the incident, I forgot to mention that in the OP! The new chips are quite easily identifiable. They are all white (didn't go through to metal), similar sized, and haven't been filled in/rusted like the very few existing ones.

The trouble is, as pointed out, proving this was caused by the gritter! I had a witness in the car who agrees with me that the noise when the gritter went past was shocking, and saw the damage afterwards.

I followed said gritter, took photos (unclear, raining) and got the registration. The council then confirmed the route and agrees that a gritter was there at the time I quoted.


I may have to see a solicitor to see if this is a case worth fighting. I just find it odd that the point the Council are really pushing is the lack of proof of negligence on there part, but what else is the damage if not proof of negligence (this is assuming it has been confirmed to have been caused by the gritter)?