Pothole claims guide discussion

Harald

Hi

I wonder if you could suggest anything in my case:
I have hit pothole on 50mph dual-carriageway road (not motorway). Pothole was deep enough to instantly damage my tyre (almost like explosion), almost lost control over my car, there was no serious accident just because there was no other vehicle behind me and I managed to reach hard shoulder
I made initial claim, council refused to pay on ground they made inspections regularly and last one was just 4 days before my accident.
From FOI request I have learned they indeed made inspection 4 days before my accident and found pothole dangerous. And they left it as is for next few days - no warning signs, no speed limit imposed, nothing.
In my opinions leaving pothole deep enough to cause tyre explosion on 50mph road left for days without any warning is not even close to "Not dangerous to traffic" (as per Highways Act). Am I right?

Supri

Hi guys please can you help me? I put in a claim to Bristol City Council about a pothole that left me with £400 of damage. They said that the road was inspected prior to the pothole hit and that they knew the pothole was there but it was below the "intervention" level - therefore they won't be paying out. Where can I go from here?

Aylesbury_Duck

Supri wrote: »

Hi guys please can you help me? I put in a claim to Bristol City Council about a pothole that left me with £400 of damage. They said that the road was inspected prior to the pothole hit and that they knew the pothole was there but it was below the "intervention" level - therefore they won't be paying out. Where can I go from here?

If they've provided evidence of all of that then unless they offer a further chance for appeal (but on what grounds would you dispute their evidence?), it's a closed matter.

Supri

It doesn't seem fair to me that they believe the pothole was below the intervention level as it still caused damage to my vehicle. Is there a way I can challenge the intervention level?

Supri

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

If they've provided evidence of all of that then unless they offer a further chance for appeal (but on what grounds would you dispute their evidence?), it's a closed matter.

It doesn't seem fair to me that they believe the pothole was below the intervention level as it still caused damage to my vehicle. Is there a way I can challenge the intervention level?

Aylesbury_Duck

What does the local authority in question say you can do by way of challenging? As I understand it, local authorities have a matrix to classify potholes, taking into account the road type and the dimensions of the pothole. They then prioritise repairs accordingly. If you took measurements and photographs of the offending pothole and can show that their classification was inaccurate, or that having classified it correctly, they acted less promptly than their policy dictates, you have grounds to challenge it. The cost of your repairs is not an objective measure of severity because it doesn't take into account the speed you were driving, the general condition of your car and the parts in question or the cost of the parts and labour, which will vary from make to make and garage to garage.

badger212

I am a Scottish solicitor and I am appalled but not surprised that the article implies it is relevant to a claim under Scottish jurisdiction. Scotland has a separate legal system and the Law is completely different. It is NOT a matter of a few differences in terminology or time limits. It is foreign Law from an English point of view. I am not surprised because other websites and forums e.g. credit card debts seem to proceed on the same lazy arrogant assumption. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "UK LAW". End of...

JRosh

On 14th March 2018 my car hit a deep pothole, resulting in a buckled, cracked wheel and a broken shock absorber. The council actually advised me not to take photos as it was on a particularly narrow and dangerous stretch of road. However, I knew I would need evidence so my husband helped me. It took several weeks to have my vehicle repaired and obtain receipts.
Taking advice from this website, I checked the council's policy on potholes and submitted a claim for a total of £432 with all the evidence. It was rejected (no surprise there!) because I had to prove negligence.
Under FOI, I then requested the repair and inspection logs. The latter was not forthcoming, but there were 8 reports within 10 days of potholes along this road. The repair order showed the defect was not repaired within the specified time limit of 5 working days - it actually took 15 days. So the council was not abiding by its own policies! I appealed the decision emphasising that the dangerous location (on a narrow bending hill with no room for manoeuvre) meant the repair should have been categorised as critical and repaired within 24 hours. Despite this, my claim was again rejected.

This time, under FOI, I requested the actual inspection log, but was apparently ignored and had to ask yet again. When I eventually received this, it showed no defects were reported by the inspection team either the month before, or on the actual day of my incident!
By chance, I saw an article in my union magazine. I could request legal advice on a matter unrelated to work. On the basis of the lack of urgency regarding the pothole repair, but mainly on the fact that highway defects were not reported accurately (someone was not doing their job properly) I was advised that I had a good case as I could prove negligence.
At a cost of £50, I pursued the matter through the small claims court. Whereas I was prepared to represent myself (couldn’t afford a solicitor) the council employed a solicitor to prepare a defence. This was to include 4 witness statements (inspectors??). The solicitors claimed a “lay person” was not qualified to judge what constituted a pothole (I had checked!).They also tried to say that the photos were not of the one reported and asked me to locate this on a map (calling me a liar!?). The court told me I did not have to respond. When asked why I had had not provided this, I replied it was the council who were confused about the location, not me and, if there was any doubt, they could have asked long before this stage.
They seemed to be almost using scare tactics to get me to withdraw my claim. As a 62 year old lady, I was admittedly daunted by the prospect of a court hearing - just me against a bunch of them! However, a couple of weeks ago, I received an offer to settle out of court for the total of £482. Of course, there was no admission of liability. I received a cheque this week. It cleared a year to the date of the incident!
So my advice is, do your research and don’t give up if you are confident in your claim!

Colin_s

My car hit a pothole and was damaged, I put in a claim form to the local authorities. And just today I got my claim declined, three witnesses and photo proof of damage to the car. My car had its exhaust broken clean off and an engine mount damaged. The letter I got explains 20mm holes on pavements and 40mm holes on roads or less are not actionable. Seriously I can take photos tomorrow of the whole road and a measuring tape in the photos, and I bet there’s over 20 holes that do count. I didn’t use a solicitor, and I’ve just made an appointment to see one.

new666uk

Hi all,


Usual story:


Hit a pothole on a country lane. 1000 x 500 x 50mm resulting in a blowout and my car being recovered on a low loader.


Inspection of the wheel at the repairers showed the alloy was buckled. Total loss claimed is ~£750.


Pothole had not been reported.


So, claim from Lancashire County Council rejected under S58 (we didn't know about it).


I have made several FOI requests and whilst I can see they inspected the roads per the schedule, they have no evidence of the speed the inspections were undertaken at. Their policy states "the vehicle should be driven at such a speed that any defects on the carriageway or, where appropriate, on the adjacent footway, can be seen”. As they don't record the speed my case is they are failing to evidence following their own policy. He could have driven the route at 90mph for all we know.


Secondly, whilst I was given records that an inspection took place, Section 58 (2) which states that “for such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions.” As they have nothing more than the log in a system to record that someone said "yeah, sure I did that guv" I thought it flimsy. No vehicle tracking or telematics to unequivocally show that road X was driven and inspected on the day.

So, of course this resulted in a 1 page "fcuk off" letter from the Council and suggestion that I get legal advice.

No solicitor really wants a case like this, there isn't enough £ in it to be financially viable and the cost to mount a case far exceeds the amount that they can claim in compensation. So does that mean that legally justice is not an option in such matters? How can I escalate this further? The Council have positioned themselves as both defendant and judge in this matter so more than the financial loss I'd rather like to stick it to them in a "one for the little guy" sort of way. Is the only option now to go through Small Claims Court?

Help! Where do I go next? @Noahnewby and @Stringybob