Pothole Claim Rejected - Suggestions/Advice?

DUTR

Tilt wrote: »

Hmm, I think I know what you mean but lets make one thing clear, I didn't say the OP's claim would be successful (unlike yourself who categorically said it wouldn't be), I said from the OP's account, it was worth pursuing. Unless the council changes it's position, It would be for a judge to decide the outcome.

What I would suggest the OP does is get face to face professional advice from a solicitor who specialises in damage claims. Most will give a free initial consultation.

Yes eventually I did say I doubt very much in this instance that the OP would be succesful, I'll tell you for why....... too many times folk think/act that if they post on MSE they are automatically in the right, I have seen many threads where responders act on the drama rather than the hard black and white facts.
Of course there will be varying opinions on any topic and more often than not the OP's don't come back to say they had lost they just go all quiet on the topic.
If he eventually gets a succesful claim then good on him, my view though is he has a 1:9 chance so more chance he will lose.

Tilt

DUTR wrote: »

Yes eventually I did say I doubt very much in this instance that the OP would be succesful, I'll tell you for why....... too many times folk think/act that if they post on MSE they are automatically in the right, I have seen many threads where responders act on the drama rather than the hard black and white facts.
Of course there will be varying opinions on any topic and more often than not the OP's don't come back to say they had lost they just go all quiet on the topic.
If he eventually gets a succesful claim then good on him, my view though is he has a 1:9 chance so more chance he will lose.

If you had put it like this at the beginning, I would of been more like :beer: than being

I myself post according to the information provided. On this occasion, I believe the OP has a case BUT I only have the OP's info to go on.

And I fully agree that all threads should have an outcome post by the OP whether it is successful or not.

neilmcl

Tilt wrote: »

"they inspected the road 3 weeks before my incident and it was fine"

Have they put this in writing? I think most people would agree that a temporary repair can certainly deteriorate within that time depending on the volume of traffic that uses the road.

Going on what you have said, I would certainly be taking it further. Have you responded to their response?

I think you're incorrectly correlating the period in which the road was last inspected and the length of the time the "temporary" repair has lasted. Nobody has stated that the pothole was repaired in the last 3 weeks, in fact the OP has stated that, according to Google, the repair was in place at least 2.5 years ago, so you're assertion that the repair has only lasted 3 weeks is by all accounts incorrect.

Tilt

neilmcl wrote: »

I think you're incorrectly correlating the period in which the road was last inspected and the length of the time the "temporary" repair has lasted. Nobody has stated that the pothole was repaired in the last 3 weeks, in fact the OP has stated that, according to Google, the repair was in place at least 2.5 years ago, so you're assertion that the repair has only lasted 3 weeks is by all accounts incorrect.

Clearly you miss-understood what I meant.

I don't think I said that a repair had been carried out 3 weeks ago (for a start I have no way of knowing). The OP stated that according to the council the pot hole 'repair' was in an adequate condition when it was inspected 3 weeks ago. My point was that a temporary repair can deteriorate in less time than that thus meaning that just because it was OK 3 weeks ago, dosn't mean it's OK now (as proven by the OP's post).

I think the very fact the council have admitted that the area hasn't been inspected/attended to for at least 3 weeks, gives the OP a credible argument.

kittykatkat

DUTR wrote: »

Can you give an example of where these temporary repairs only last 3 weeks (as a none civil engineer to none civil engineer) .

Many roads as I understand are inspected at a much more frequent basis than over 2.5 years, if the OP was well aware of them, then it puzzles me why they were still driving along it with impunity, only to become conerned now that they have experienced damage to their vehicle.
I stand by they won't win a claim in this instance.

Just to clarify here.... the inspection was (reportedly) 3 weeks before my damage. The 2.5 yrs was the minimum amount of time the pothole had been in place with temporary standard repair, as evidenced by Google Streetview dated images. Obviously I wasn't "well aware of it" when driving over it at 40mph, the detailed history study of the pothole came after the event. Also believe me when I say where I live, it's literally impossible to avoid all potholes because the roads are so bad. They really are horrendous. They are often in big clusters and its a case of aiming for the least deep ones and hoping for the best.

Back to my OP, I'm still unsure if I have much of a case. I'm not sure how important it is that the pothole was previously repaired to an evidently inadequate standard, which is what my case would rest on.

In the meantime I've reported several potholes but reporting them all would be a full time job. I've also put in a FOI request regarding the inspections. Paying my claim may have been cheaper for them...

Spicy_McHaggis

kittykatkat wrote: »

Just to clarify here.... the inspection was (reportedly) 3 weeks before my damage. The 2.5 yrs was the minimum amount of time the pothole had been in place with temporary standard repair, as evidenced by Google Streetview dated images. Obviously I wasn't "well aware of it" when driving over it at 40mph, the detailed history study of the pothole came after the event. Also believe me when I say where I live, it's literally impossible to avoid all potholes because the roads are so bad. They really are horrendous. They are often in big clusters and its a case of aiming for the least deep ones and hoping for the best.

Back to my OP, I'm still unsure if I have much of a case. I'm not sure how important it is that the pothole was previously repaired to an evidently inadequate standard, which is what my case would rest on.

In the meantime I've reported several potholes but reporting them all would be a full time job. I've also put in a FOI request regarding the inspections. Paying my claim may have been cheaper for them...

Tilt seems to think you have but as usual hasn't provided anything other than his opinion to base your case on. Why not see if he'll come along as an [STRIKE]expert[/STRIKE] witness.

Pajoma

Section 58 defence.

Ask them for the inspection regime, ie how often they carry out inspections based on the road classification. For example, higher traffic routes should be inspected more regularly.
Then ask for the inspection reports to see when the last inspection was.

If it tallies, the only other option is to try to get witness evidence to state that the pothole was actually in existence before their last inspection and so they must have missed it

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Tilt seems to think you have but as usual hasn't provided anything other than his opinion to base your case on. Why not see if he'll come along as an [STRIKE]expert[/STRIKE] witness.

And your "expert" advice to the OP would be...?