Pothole claim rejected

aaz01

At the start of the year I hit a really bad pothole which was hidden by a shallow puddle. It took out two of my tyres and the council repaired it the next day (I reported it to '101' because it was late at night and a busy road).

It has taken 6 months of emails/calls/complaints to the local council, but they have finally answered my claim. The short version is:
"A work order was raised to repair the defect 5 days before your incident, repairs were completed within a reasonable period of time and on this basis we are satisfied that our Client has not been in breach of their reasonable duty of care."

1) That section of road has been constantly falling apart for many years, with potholes all over the place and sometimes temporary repairs taking place

2) Surely 5 days is excessive to repair such a severe pothole that it took out two of my tyres? In the 10 minutes I was parked next to it, I noticed quite a few other cars hit it with a really loud crunch - it's a busy main road so I dread to think how many tyres were damaged over 5 days!

Is it worth going further with the claim? It was only £200 of damage so if it's going to take weeks/months of effort it'll be cheaper just to leave it now

jaydeeuk1

If you knew the road was that bad, why did you drive so fast as to cause damage?

Which council is it as 5 days turnaround is bloody good.

neilmcl

I can't see a judge agreeing that a 5 day turn around to repair a pothole is unreasonable. Next time avoid driving through puddles at speed.

xyz123

Sorry if it's a daft question. Just trying to understand this. Irrespective of how long council takes to fill pot hole, during that time do they not remain liable. In theory how did OP know there will be pot holes? Especially as it says a work order was raised on date xx. What about when was the defect first reported and how long did council take to raise work order?

Crabman

If the council repaired it the day after your report to 101, it appears unreasonable and a possible failure of their duty of care that they did not do this 5 days earlier when the "work order" was "raised."

£200 is not a small amount. You are not liable for costs in the small claims court if you do not succeed and so you'd effectively only have your own time to consider and the court fees.

straighttalker

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/58

The council's defence is all down to reasonableness. Council's are obviously stretched financially so they don't have an unlimited workforce who can go out and repair potholes at a moment's notice. They are allowed a reasonable amount of time to go out and repair any defects once they are placed on notice or they spot one in a routine inspection. This is reflected in the above provision of the Highways Act.

The council seem satisfied that once the defect in this case was spotted, they arranged for it to be repaired within a reasonable timeframe. If you feel this is unreasonable, go ahead and spend more of your own money on issuing a small claim.

bod1467

Send them a Letter Before Action first, outlining your claim and advising that they have 14 days to pay your claim else you'll pursue it through the small claims court wherein your costs in bringing the claim will be added to the amount claimed.

Like as much the council will pay the claim rather than run the risk of losing at court. Even if they won they'd have still had to expend far more than the cost of your claim ... expenditure that they likely wouldn't be able to reclaim.