Pot Hole Damage

fattony

Maybe I don't have a claim but it's pretty harsh, this is what I'm trying to establish.

Of course you drive to the conditions of the road, she was on a school run so I very much doubt she was driving dangerously, up to the limit possibly I'll have to ask her but from what she said she saw it at the last minute along with 3 other drivers that day.

It grates me when I pay rfl and the roads are not properly maintained, maybe I need to seek advice from CAB?

Optimist

fattony wrote: »

Thanks for the response's, I got a letter back from the council today and they have said they are not liable:

They advise me that they have a duty as a highways authorithy which requores them to maintain the highway network to a reasonable standard and they are not required to keep the highway in a perfect condition, defects will arise from time to time.

The road in question was reported on 12th October 2010 and no hazardous defects were recorded, on the 16th December 2010 during the course of the Highways Inspector everyday duties he noticed the defect and classified it as requiring future programmed repairs, our incident occured during the intervening period prior to the completion of these works.

They are satisfied the repairs to the road were completed in reasonable time and deny liability for my claim.

Where can I go from here if anywhere?

We had heavy snow on the 18th December 2010 which I can only assume made the road worse and when we called to report the pot hole immediately after the incident the council already knew about the pot hole and within 5 days it was repaired.

The incident itself happened on 2nd February 2011.

I really dont want to give up on this, is this a generic sort of letter and those who take the time to reply eventually get somewhere or should I just give up?

It is down to that wonderful word reasonable. It is obviously unreasonable to expect a instant fix but how long should it take ? Given the weather conditions in December I fear you will be pushed to persuade a judge that the council took too long to repair the one pothole amongst the dozens of potholes they must have had.

fattony

I think I should write a well worded letter and see if I get any further, would anyone be able to assist in writing this letter?

lincroft1710

Local council in my area is now putting up notices at the start of poorly surfaced roads saying "We are aware of the condition of the road and resurfacing work should commence on XXXX."

OP, if the council has said no you have probably only 2 options 1) sue 2) forget all about it.

Option 1 may well cost you more than the cost of the 2 tyres if you lose.

Foggster

fattony wrote: »

Maybe I don't have a claim but it's pretty harsh, this is what I'm trying to establish.

Of course you drive to the conditions of the road, she was on a school run so I very much doubt she was driving dangerously, up to the limit possibly I'll have to ask her but from what she said she saw it at the last minute along with 3 other drivers that day.

It grates me when I pay rfl and the roads are not properly maintained, maybe I need to seek advice from CAB?

Playing devils advocate here, but if she was on the school run, then she must have seen the pot hole in the days leading up to the damage? When I used to audit highway claims, there was a case where the courts ruled 50/50 liability because the claimant was familiar with the road because it was his daily commute but only reported the pot hole when damage was caused. The courts ruled he should had prior knowledge of the problem and should have reported it/avoided it.

fattony

Thanks for your comments, while I fully understand your comments familiar with the road is a little more involved.

She works for a private family taking the kids to school, recently they changed schools and the school run route changed, I'm not saying she didnt know the road at all and it does ask a good question - which I will ask her!

wealdroam

Fattony, have a word with your local councillor.

They may be willing to help you.

Oopsadaisy

Councils now have 'tree inspectors' 'road inspectors' and 'pavement inspectors'.

Job - walk the parks, roads and pavements and assess and record. Done at risk-assessed frequency this covers the council.

After all how can you hold the council responsible if they don't know about it AND they have a checking system in place.

Equaliser123

Oopsadaisy wrote: »

After all how can you hold the council responsible if they don't know about it AND they have a checking system in place.

That's exactly how a council is liable - that their system of inspections has either not been correctly performed or not performed at all.

Oopsadaisy

Equaliser123 wrote: »

That's exactly how a council is liable - that their system of inspections has either not been correctly performed or not performed at all.

Yes you're correct....no inspection = liable. I was referring to a correctly scheduled inspection.

The other way they would be liable is if a fault was reported [eg by member of public] and not repaired promptly enough.