Pothole claims guide discussion

waqasahmed

Surely for the majority of roads, youre basically claiming for compensation, that comes from the taxpayer??

Totally cool with people claiming from private companies though

Crabman

waqasahmed wrote: »

Surely for the majority of roads, youre basically claiming for compensation, that comes from the taxpayer??

No it doesn't. More people claiming for damages doesn't mean your tax bill goes up the following year.

It is up to local authorities to fund road repairs properly and use their money wisely, at least, whatever's left after they've paid their senior managers' six/seven-figure salaries.

StringyBob

Candice-Marie wrote: »

Thank you for this, Rebecca.

Will the guide for Private Roads include information on establishing who owns a private road? This is something I'm trying to do today, so if anyone has any advice in the meantime, I'd be pleased to read it.

It's a road through an industrial estate, and it doesn't seem as though the road belongs to the owners of the units.

Thank you

Try the land registry. A search doesn't cost much and it will tell you who owns the road and whether there are any covenants for repair on any other party. If it's not "adopted" by the local authority you'll have to quote the occupiers' liability act.

waqasahmed

Crabman wrote: »

No it doesn't. More people claiming for damages doesn't mean your tax bill goes up the following year.

It is up to local authorities to fund road repairs properly and use their money wisely, at least, whatever's left after they've paid their senior managers' six/seven-figure salaries.

With all due fairness I mentioned nothing about your tax bill. I mentioned that surely the compensation money is being paid by the tax payer?

I mean local authorities are hardly private companies...

Crabman

waqasahmed wrote: »

With all due fairness I mentioned nothing about your tax bill. I mentioned that surely the compensation money is being paid by the tax payer?

I mean local authorities are hardly private companies...

Why does it matter? The taxes you and I pay will remain the same irrespective of the number of claims. It doesn't matter whether it's the taxpayer or not.

It's up to local authorities to prioritise road repairs and protect the public. My local authority could have repaired around 2300 potholes with the severance payment they gave to just one manager.

Land_Registry

StringyBob wrote: »

Try the land registry. A search doesn't cost much and it will tell you who owns the road and whether there are any covenants for repair on any other party. If it's not "adopted" by the local authority you'll have to quote the occupiers' liability act.

If the road is registered then you can usually obtain information online but often with non-postal addresses it is the postal service which is often the best way of confirming the details. Full guidance is available on our website

The online search costs nothing unless it reveals available information (£3 thereafter for a copy register for example).

My advice would be to try an online search but if there is any doubt over the result then do a postal search of the index map for £4 to confirm whether the road is registered or not. If it is then the search result would provide the title number(s) for you and you could then search using those online so you are sure you have the right information.

If the road is not registered then identifying the legal owner will come down to your own detective work. The adjoining registered titles may offer some clues especially if they have specific details re any rights to use it. For example if they have a right of way over the road as granted by an old deed then the party who granted the right is likely to have been the owner so your detective work starts from there.

crittertog

StringyBob wrote: »

They do, otherwise we pay. Simple.

Can your engineers move near me, please? I've reported several potholes to my local council, who typically take well in excess of 3 months to deal with it (in fact, their highways defects form gives a target of 2 years!), frequently being left for months highlighted in white paint - there's one near my house that I reported in January that still hasn't been fixed ...

jayneynip

Well the claim letter is going in. Sick of potholes in my street. On a blind bend, outside pensioners and handicapped peoples houses. They filled all of the potholes bar one on Saturday morning. Left a pothole 61cm x 42cm x 12cm deep. Took photos on Saturday after they finished. Lots of smaller ones have appeared...feels like a runa pothole gauntlet every morning. Yes I have told them by email, webpage, rung them and tomorrow they get copies of all photos- with tape measurments, mechanics notes, two car bills and a complaints letter. Thank you everyone on this thread. They are negligent as they fixed the majority of the other potholes and left this one AND the location on a blind bend coupled with who lives at this point would suggest that it would be reasonable that they fixed all potholes.

Moths_Mummy

I don't think your guide to potholes addresses my situation. I live on an estate (this is NOT a gated estate) where the roads are Crown property (i.e. owned by the State on behalf of the Queen). This came about when the developer who built the estate sold off the houses he had built but decided to retain ownership of the roads for himself, and then he went bankrupt and ownership of the roads passed automatically to the Crown to pay off the developer's income tax debts. The local council has not adopted the roads on this estate, so there are no streetlights or drainage on the roads, and the council does not maintain the surface of the roads in any way. I have written to the Crown Estates Department to ask if they will please start to maintain the roads, and they have refused. Some of the local residents have formed a club whereby members chip in towards the cost of maintaining some of the roads on the estate and the club organises this maintenance on their behalf. But, but not all of the roads are maintained in this way, and not all of the residents join the club or contribute to the cost of this patchy maintenance plan. Who then should I sue for damage to my car if it hits a pothole on this estate?

TartanGiant

StringyBob wrote: »

Not correct I'm afraid. You have to prove negligence and/or a breach of duty. In pothole cases all you essentially have to prove is that the pothole was dangerous to road users. If you prove that then there is a breach of s41 of the Highways Act, as that imposes a strict duty upon the highway authority to maintain the highway. Even if you do that you are still likely to be rejected due to the s58 defence.

The guide is useful, but I fear it will give people false hope. I work in the claims department of a Council and can tell you that over 90% of pothole claims are rejected. This is not because, as the guide cynically claims, it is easier to reject them at an early stage, but it's because firstly the law is stacked in our favour and secondly (and this will come as a shock to most people) we actually know and do our jobs properly (most of the time).

We have never, in my time, lost a case at court because our system of inspection and maintenance was inadequate. Our Highway policy is better than the code of practice. We only lose and pay out on cases where there is basic human error i.e. an inspector has blatantly missed a pothole or the repair hasn't been done on time. It is far more efficient for the authority to pay out at the earliest possible chance if we know we've messed up. However, if we are confident we have done everything reasonable then we won't pay out, no matter how many fancy letters or FOI requests are submitted. That may sound harsh but we have a duty to look after public money.

Finally, it's worth remembering that given the right (or wrong) conditions a pothole can form in a matter of hours and no inspection and maintenance system in the world would prevent some damage. Sometimes it is just an accident and nobody is to blame. That tends to get forgotten in the current claims culture where somebody always has to be at fault.

For StringyBob

Put away your popcorn StringyBob and save it for the other kids - you ain’t attending any Court for a listening session, it’s over !

The Council knew they had screwed up after getting my heavy dossier with the claim against them.
The solid threat of taking them to the Small Claims Court and my overwhelming evidence of bad practice and differing accounts of their, “Safety Inspections” regimes plus poor/missing records, and asking for their defence information under the Civil Procedures Rules 27 1998 (England & Wales) to produce the Standard Disclosures List for the 12 months prior to the incident was just too much for them - they knew the game was up (that Section 58 malarkey) and threw in the towel.
QUOTE
Thank you for the confirmation of repairs undertaken following your incident, I confirm that the County Council is prepared to offer you £***.** in full and final settlement of your claim. As this is the full amount as per your recent correspondence I will begin requesting payment. Due to office closure over this period [Christmas & New Year] there may be a slight delay in being able to complete this.
UNQUOTE
I thought you would like to know that I won my case before even stepping foot in a Court of Law.

The use of some of the Case Law I came across on various Law websites about Pothole claims helped enormously; however just to clear up some lose ends StringyBob for other readers, can I refer you back about what you said previously.

Part of your reply to my post read,
StringyBob View Post Not correct I'm afraid. You have to prove negligence and/or a breach of duty.

Then you said,
StringyBob said: I’m afraid you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. Look at what Denning said. You don’t have to prove a negligent breach, you merely have to prove a breach.
So you’re initial comment of not having to prove a breach is flat out wrong.
The guy with the “serious reading comrehension problem” is you [StringyBob] sunshine!

You even contradict your own writings StringyBob by not remembering what you said in the first instance!!
I don’t know where you got that my initial comment of NOT having to prove a breach came from!
I never said that anywhere here - show me!
You are on record within this forum as saying, “You have to prove NEGLIGENCE and/or a breach of duty” and then almost in the next breath you said, “You don’t have to prove a negligent breach”. Which are we to believe StringyBob ?

My argument was that the word “negligent” never entered the equation as being a required element of proof.
The only proof required was a breach of the duty to maintain, not that it was a “negligent” breach.

However, a claimant is not barred from submitting evidence that shows some negligence (or a lot) was involved in a dispute with a council.

I repeat part of my post: Lord Denning in Haydon v Kent CC [1987] QB 374 “a claimant will not need to prove that there was a negligent breach of duty to maintain, merely that there was a breach of the duty to maintain”.

Show me StringyBob where it says, “the claimant has to prove the highway authority has been negligent"

I’m await that proof of yours, chapter & verse, Mr Claims Dept expert.