Advice needed on Pothole Claim

BigAAC

Hi Guys

I've been going back and forth with my local council regarding damage to my car which resulted in me having to replace an alloy due to a pothole.

I have sent off the template letter posted on MSE (thanks for that!!) and requested an FOI on all the maintenance logs on this road. This highlighted a number of instances where the council didn't follow their own maintenance policy for a number of reported potholes along this stretch of road including:


1. The pothole i reported was assigned the defect code (Pothole Large Exceeding 600x600x100mm) which, according to their Carriageway Intervention Criteria requires remedial works within 24hrs. The maintanence report sets the priority to urgent (24 hours). Although the works were completed within 24 hours of the works order being raised this was 11 days after the event was recorded. The councils response:

pothole exceeding 600 x 600 x 100 was a manual error and on that report the description does state the defect was only 50mm deep therefore the repair was due within 14 days.

.

2. In another case, on a pothole just up the road from my incident, a pothole was reported by general public as a pothole exceeding 600x600x100mm which, again should be remediated within 24 hours. However their fault logs show it logged as 'within 14 days.' The actual repair took place 10 days after first reported.

Council response

Although this took several days before the order was raised the defect was not expected to be greater than 600 x 600 x100, however work priorities did not allow an inspector to visit the site therefore the decision was made to request this as an urgent repair to ensure the 14 day deadline was met.

Essentially there is very little consistency in their reporting and maintenance records. Their response to these points was:

"This claim will continue to be repudiated. Under the Highways Act the County Council is entitled to rely on a Section 58 defence - “whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway”.

Ultimately i'd welcome your thoughts on whether i should continue to pursue things, the claim is £128 which was the cost of a new alloy - i have the invoice from the garage as proof).

Thanks for taking the time to read through all that

thanks

A

ChumLee

Just the alloy damaged and not the tyre?

BigAAC

Yes just the alloy as it was buckled and would have failed MOT

AdrianC

BigAAC wrote: »

Yes just the alloy as it was buckled and would have failed MOT

If it was buckled, the MOT is the least of your issues with it.

BigAAC wrote: »

1. The pothole i reported was assigned the defect code (Pothole Large Exceeding 600x600x100mm) which, according to their Carriageway Intervention Criteria requires remedial works within 24hrs. The maintanence report sets the priority to urgent (24 hours). Although the works were completed within 24 hours of the works order being raised this was 11 days after the event was recorded. The councils response:

“pothole exceeding 600 x 600 x 100 was a manual error and on that report the description does state the defect was only 50mm deep therefore the repair was due within 14 days.

So it was repaired within the timescale applicable to the actual pothole.

2. In another case, on a pothole just up the road from my incident

Irrelevant to your case.

BigAAC

Hi Adrian

thanks for the reply.

In response to item 1, i agree if it is indeed 50mm in depth but it was clearly reported as 100mm deep on the report card, and then subsequently 50mm in the description. When i measured it (the day after the incident, and 12 days before repair) it was 105mm at its centre.

item 2 - agreed.