Wheel damaged, is it possible to claim of Council

Jorgan_2

One of the guys in work managed to drive into a pot hole & damage the wheel & tyre. The garage said the wheel was unrepairable, the rim had actually split & the tyre was useless as well. He purchased a new wheel & tyre, costing £225 & wrote to the council tor try & claim back the costs incurred.

The council have written back saying they inspected the road on the 5th of May and it was ok, somebody reported a pot hole on the 25th of May & a repair team were sent out on the same day. My mate hit the pot hole on the 27th of May. The council say they are not negligent in repairing the road & have rejected his claim.

Anybody got any ideas on what to do now?

Astaroth

The problem with these types of claim is that you have to prove that 1) the council was aware or reasonably should have been aware that there was a problem and 2) that they had had reasonable time to make repairs to it.

Given it was such a long time ago it is going to be difficult to do anything about. The repairs were done 2 days before so you would need to establish if the repairs were not done up to standard, if they were and a subsequent problem developed or if someone vandalised/ caused intentional or accidental damage to the road after the repairs.

If it wasnt 1 then you have to go back to the council knowing and having time loop. If it was 1 then there is a case to argue.

wdyw

Astaroth wrote:

The problem with these types of claim is that you have to prove that 1) the council was aware or reasonably should have been aware that there was a problem and 2) that they had had reasonable time to make repairs to it.

Given it was such a long time ago it is going to be difficult to do anything about. The repairs were done 2 days before so you would need to establish if the repairs were not done up to standard, if they were and a subsequent problem developed or if someone vandalised/ caused intentional or accidental damage to the road after the repairs.

If it wasnt 1 then you have to go back to the council knowing and having time loop. If it was 1 then there is a case to argue.

I don't believe the above is 100% correct IMHO. While your local council like to wriggle out of claims by saying such things, they are responsible for keping the roads in a safe condition, and ignorance of a problem is no defence. The usual guidelines are, take photos and measurements, write to coucil and see them in court if they don't see things your way.

However, I find it strange for someone to hit a pothole that had been repaired two days previously.

Jorgan_2

wdyw wrote:

However, I find it strange for someone to hit a pothole that had been repaired two days previously.

My thoughts as well, he took photos of the road, hole & wheel at the time. The council have told him that he hit the repaired pothole from his description of the location. It was full of water when he hit, so if it had been repaired it can't have been a good job.

Thanks for your reply's.

Astaroth

wdyw wrote:

While your local council like to wriggle out of claims by saying such things, they are responsible for keping the roads in a safe condition, and ignorance of a problem is no defence. The usual guidelines are, take photos and measurements, write to coucil and see them in court if they don't see things your way./QUOTE]

Yes they are responsible to maintain them but liability is based on the test of "reasonableness".

It is not reasonable to expect the council to inspect every meter of public road in its juristiction every minute/ hour/ day etc. Hence why the first thing you have to show is that the council knew about it or reasonably should have known about it. A small hothole on a residential close is much less likely to be known to the council than a 3 foot hole on the main road.

You then have the second test which is did they have time to repair it given when they did/ should have known about it. Again councils have finite resources and so it is accepted that work has to be prioritised - the larger the damage or the more major the road the higher the priority should have been. Countering that to some degree however is the amount of disruption to the traffic it will cause. Fully closing down the main road into a town simply to repair a crack when it is planned for the road to be closed the following week for gas main work would probably not be considered reasonable yet it may have been possible.

Back to the OP - it does seem odd that a repaired pothole would have derteriated again so quickly. A photo may be able to tell you something but if the hole was full of water it will be more difficult to try and guess what has happened.