Pothole claims guide discussion

rochycoo

Need urgent advise please.

Broke my ankle when I fell on a pothole in a McDonald’s car park back in February. Took photos but wasn’t advised by my solicitor at the time to take accurate depth measurements. McDonald’s solicitor has sent photos to my solicitor with the depth of the pothole showing 35mm but the measurement was taken from the top of water that was in the pothole at the time of the photo!
My solicitor has said that they can only proceed if I can take photos of the depth in the same manner, but the pothole has now been filled in!
They are now closing the case!
Surely they should be disputing the validity of the photos!
I’ve also had a checklist from a McDonald’s safety inspection that noted potholes in the car park 2 weeks prior to my accident!

Reedoftheyard

Having fallen foul of a large pot hole& then been refused any form of compensation by Swansea Council I followed the comprehensive advice on this site & submitted a FOI request for the repair policy & inspection history of the road concerned. I got the former but they've refused the latter stating:
.......the Council is withholding that information since it considers that section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act which relates to commercial interests applies. The Council believes that disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Council.
Section 43 is a qualified exemption subject to the public interest test and the Council’s view is that to release this information would compromise its commercial interests because release of the information could:
• Potentially result in the Council having a large number of claims brought against it for either vehicle damage or personal injury as a result of the identification of areas of the highway that required maintenance.
• Leave the Council vulnerable to fraudulent claims.
This exemption is a qualified exemption and as such is subject to the application of the public interest test. The Council has considered whether there is a legitimate public interest in releasing this information and has determined that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
I will be seeking a review of this decision by the council & (as is likely) an appeal to the Information Commissioner. But n the meantime I was wondering if there was any further advice in negotiating this latest obstructive hurdle??

janbrox

I have been in correspondence with Margaret Lee,Executive Director for Corporate and Customer Services,Essex County Council about £1800 damage caused to my car through hitting a pothole at the beginning of April this year.The Council are using the Highways Act 1980,section 58 as a get out clause and are refusing payment.My car is not drivable and is in fact dangerous to use.I have fulfilled all the requirements made by the Council but still they are wriggling out of paying.I have written to my MP as I am a pensioner and do not have the money for this repair.I'm at my wit's end!:mad:

janbrox

It looks like,in my case,they have a clause in the Highways Act 1980 to cover every eventuality!

Billy1960

All, could anyone tell me if this correct, I have tried to find out if the council has repaired?inspected the road and this the reply I got.

Your request for information included in an email dated 9 November to the Insurance Team has been passed to the Information Governance Team. You requested details about highway maintenance Burnhill Green Road.

As the requested information relates to highway/land matters, we have considered your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

The requested information is considered to be exempt from disclosure under EIR exception 12 (5)(b) - information disclosure that would adversely affect formal legal proceedings.

The basis for this is that the information is available to you via an application in civil proceedings and the normal civil procedure rules for discovery on cases.

The disclosure of relevant information in respect of proceedings is dealt with by the civil procedure rules. The court must decide whether the information requested is relevant to those proceedings. Placing this information into the public domain outside of the legal process is likely to be unfair and is likely to undermine the proceedings.

We are of the view that that the disclosure of the withheld information would undermine the course of justice as the documents would be available to you through the normal rules of disclosure. The access regime provided through the Civil Procedure Rules, would result in the necessary withheld information being disclosed as part of any legal proceedings resulting from you submitting a claim. It is possible that the courts would consider some information should be withheld under the normal disclosure rules, and therefore a disclosure under EIR could undermine the decision of the court in this respect.

The exception used is subject to a public interest test. The Council is of the view that, for the rationale explained above, there is a strong public interest in maintaining the exception.

Please refer to a Decision Notice by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for more information via the following website

In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this is a refusal notice to your request. If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you may ask for an internal review. Please contact the Information Governance Team, Legal & Democratic Services, Shropshire Council, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND or email on [
Yours sincerely

JMONSTER

I have a active claim where I tripped on a paving slab where I broke my hand in 3 places, due to the slab raising over 1 and half inches, the council did write me a letter of apology when I reported the incident couple days after my accident, they also said they regret I tripped on a defective slab as a highways inspector had visited the area and confirmed there was a defect, this was before they were made aware of my claim as you don't have to tell the council you are putting a claim in. Now that they found out I put a claim in they have thrown the 1980 act section 58, and my previous solicitor backed away from the case saying I wont win, so I got a second opinion from a law firm that specialise in overturning the section 58 as they say the claimant does not have to prove neglect to maintain a highway, because how would I know if they neglected to do their duty, I wasn't supervising the workmen, and they also got the name of the road wrong where they have refused to amend it even when I tried putting them correct. the council said what I did was naughty not telling them about my claim. Now when the inspector visited the area where I tripped he took an ariel photo of the slab not showing the raise in the paving slab, and only took that one photo, luckily my father took multiple photos and measurments of 1.4 inches, the inspector taking that bias photo of the slab was naughty. My new solicitor said she is very confident she will win my case, as she said I don't have to prove nothing, and the section 58 is mostly for potholes, and roadways, not footpaths and bridleways which would fall under section 57 instead of section 58, which means the council are using the wrong section as a defence, therefore when this goes to court I will be awarded more money as this section 58 business has delayed my case, but we will see what happens on the court date I will keep you posted...….

I must add its wrong for the council to keep throwing the section 58 especially where I have been injured severly, and my hand has been left disfigured for life, as my mallet 5th finger is bent and I cant straighten it, I may need operation to fix it, and I have a lump in back of my hand where my bone broke! which was metacarpal bone which is bad bone to break, and will cause problems with functionality of my hand! I don't like the council too much because they always pull these stunts why cant they admit they are in the wrong! and further more they said the defect would be fixed in 7 days which I have the job report given to me by my former solicitor, it says expected start date on work is 15/10/2018 and now its 18/11/2018 and still not fixed and someone else tripped on the slab and smashed their knee, another claim is being made so I been told, they even marked it down as non dangerous, and the slab raises 1.4 inches which I would say is dangerous. the council don't know I have my own photos of the paving slab, they will when I go to court

troubleonline

Has anyone any experience of claiming for vehicle damage due to a poorly designed kerb and street corner rather than a pothole? I punctured the wheel of my tyre this morning turning a left hand corner that did not have your regular 90 degree angle but instead had a piece of kerb that jutted out into the road and could not be seen from the vehicle.

Roadworks at the opposite junction may not have help the situation as I had to pull further to the left to an on coming vehcle through before turning. However it is a really quite dangerous designed corner on reflection. I cannot be the first person that this has happened to.

EDIT To add I went back to the site this morning and notice that there is also a pothole in the kerb with the kerb stone missing and it looks like that may partly be what has caused the damage.

Mr_TR

If you are a member of a trade union, you may have access to free legal assistance from their solicitors to pursue cases like this, including receiving the full compensation. Check with your union.

I had an accident where the council had done repairs around a drain, only the tarmac had completely crumpled away. I managed to get my front wheel of my bicycle stuck between the edge of the hole and the drain cover. I went headlong onto the pavement and broke my wrist (and scraped my knee). The wrist had to be operated and unfortunately I have permanent symptoms now (lack of strength in my dominant hand, ongoing pain and severe discomfort in my fingers).

The council has admitted liability (on the last day permissible) and repaired the hole two days after that.

Be aware that you can probably get a higher compensation if your symptoms are considered permanent, which in my case means that I had to show they persisted for more than 24 months, dragging the case out.

To me, using solicitors has made some things easier, like finding an independent expert to asses my symptoms and writing up the material, but my case has not had a very high priority at the solicitors, meaning that I have had to pursue them constantly to see any progress.

Mr_TR

MrCautious wrote: »

I don't like this kind of thing. You are moving into the no win no fee kind of territory. The compensation culture we are becoming s not pleasant.

I agree with you when we are talking about frivolous claims, otherwise I do not think you are right.

We are paying our tax and for the money we should expect the government and the councils to provide a certain level of service. The general disrepair of our roads is a travesty and the added cost to society because of this is substantial and real. There is the direct cost of repairs to vehicles (and remember there is actually added wear and tear on the vehicles running over potholes, even if they do not cause immediate damage). There are indirect costs too (time lost changing tires, waiting for roadside assistance, vehicle repairs, ...) and other direct costs, apart from the vehicle repair (courts, solicitors, in case of personal injury, hospitals, ...).

As citizens, we are often liable to not hold our chosen leaders (be it the government or the councilors) responsible for their failings and this is one way to show them their decision to save money in one place has a cost in another (apart from being fair to the people that had an accident). Unfortunately, the responsible people do not have to pay from their own purse, making it a problem for society as a whole.

System

You wont get anything out of West Berkshire council, i tried and they threatened me said it was going to cost me a lot of money