We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Council manipulation of their pothole evidence!
Bradie10_1
Posts: 5 Forumite
in Motoring
Hi all.
I wonder if anyone can provide advice on my situation.
I hit a pothole March 4th 2020 causing approx £450 damages to car. I have good photos of the potholes despite taken at night time. As it was on a busy road I could not take measurements ....and who carries a tape measure with them anyway?
In a nut shell, the council have declined paying compensation for damages as they believe they have acted with the time frames of 'section 58' when it comes to repairing potholes.
This council state an inspection of the pothole I hit was carried out on 3rd March 2020 (day before I hit the pothole).
When asking for all the evidence (inspection photographs, repair reports) in relation to the pothole, it is quite clear and obvious that there are differences between the potholes appearance within their inspection photographs on the 3rd and to the photo of pot hole I hit on the 4th. It is certainly the same pot hole but the pot hole within their inspection photograph contains thick line paint outlining the potholes giving evidence an inspection had been carried out. My photograph 24 hours later, there is no single evidence of any line paint. When challenging the council on this they report 'it had faded.' I managed to contact the company who makes this line paint and they have given evidence that the line paint lasts for 9-12 months. It is the same line paint used within this county council as I stopped a highways maintenance worker within the same county as he was working whilst he was actually using the line paint and he actually gave me a can.
Furthermore, my pothole contains remnants (1/4 of the pothole) of a previous fix (tarmac looks old) of the pothole (which I also have evidence for). But their inspection on the 3rd photo contains a new temporary fill that has broken down containing at least half of the pothole. Again their answer to this when I challenged them is that 'the pothole temp fix further broke down between their inspection on the 3rd and when i hit the pothole on 4th'. Both answers very deceptive in my opinion!
Their inspection photographs also have the time and date planted on them where other photographs do not. I have a strong feeling that the inspection photographs were taken at a much later date (outside section 58 time frames) and have been made to appear to be within legal time frames. The sheer frustration and difficulty is.... proving it!
I also have photographs of the permanent fix of the pothole that is now in place (taken 10/7/20) which looks completely different quality to the photo they supplied of the 'permanent fix' claiming to have occurred within section 58 legal time frames. It looks very fragile and bumpy, similar to a temporary fix made on the 6th of March.
The council have now advised I take legal advise.
My main aim now is to try and prove they had knowledge of the defect and they did not make the necessary repairs within the statutory timescale (taken from section 58).
My concerns are obvious, no solicitor has fully listened to my case as they do not feel it is financially worth it, taking their fees into consideration and advised for small claims court. Which I agree with.
Does anybody feel it is worth pursuing. Has anyone heard of councils manipulating evidence to avoid paying compensation.
The local council and social care ombudsman also can not help. So who regulates the councils? Does this mean they will continue to keep getting away with this knowing they are not regulated?
Any help advice would be hugely appreciated.
I wonder if anyone can provide advice on my situation.
I hit a pothole March 4th 2020 causing approx £450 damages to car. I have good photos of the potholes despite taken at night time. As it was on a busy road I could not take measurements ....and who carries a tape measure with them anyway?
In a nut shell, the council have declined paying compensation for damages as they believe they have acted with the time frames of 'section 58' when it comes to repairing potholes.
This council state an inspection of the pothole I hit was carried out on 3rd March 2020 (day before I hit the pothole).
When asking for all the evidence (inspection photographs, repair reports) in relation to the pothole, it is quite clear and obvious that there are differences between the potholes appearance within their inspection photographs on the 3rd and to the photo of pot hole I hit on the 4th. It is certainly the same pot hole but the pot hole within their inspection photograph contains thick line paint outlining the potholes giving evidence an inspection had been carried out. My photograph 24 hours later, there is no single evidence of any line paint. When challenging the council on this they report 'it had faded.' I managed to contact the company who makes this line paint and they have given evidence that the line paint lasts for 9-12 months. It is the same line paint used within this county council as I stopped a highways maintenance worker within the same county as he was working whilst he was actually using the line paint and he actually gave me a can.
Furthermore, my pothole contains remnants (1/4 of the pothole) of a previous fix (tarmac looks old) of the pothole (which I also have evidence for). But their inspection on the 3rd photo contains a new temporary fill that has broken down containing at least half of the pothole. Again their answer to this when I challenged them is that 'the pothole temp fix further broke down between their inspection on the 3rd and when i hit the pothole on 4th'. Both answers very deceptive in my opinion!
Their inspection photographs also have the time and date planted on them where other photographs do not. I have a strong feeling that the inspection photographs were taken at a much later date (outside section 58 time frames) and have been made to appear to be within legal time frames. The sheer frustration and difficulty is.... proving it!
I also have photographs of the permanent fix of the pothole that is now in place (taken 10/7/20) which looks completely different quality to the photo they supplied of the 'permanent fix' claiming to have occurred within section 58 legal time frames. It looks very fragile and bumpy, similar to a temporary fix made on the 6th of March.
The council have now advised I take legal advise.
My main aim now is to try and prove they had knowledge of the defect and they did not make the necessary repairs within the statutory timescale (taken from section 58).
My concerns are obvious, no solicitor has fully listened to my case as they do not feel it is financially worth it, taking their fees into consideration and advised for small claims court. Which I agree with.
Does anybody feel it is worth pursuing. Has anyone heard of councils manipulating evidence to avoid paying compensation.
The local council and social care ombudsman also can not help. So who regulates the councils? Does this mean they will continue to keep getting away with this knowing they are not regulated?
Any help advice would be hugely appreciated.
0
Comments
-
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
Let's take those photos out of the equation. So then what? There's no proof they'd logged damage needing repair prior to your damage... That would let them off the hook.0 -
I would forget all about it myself because there is no way that you will get anything out of the highways department.
And don't forget that if you ring your insurance company about this you will have a 'no fault claim' logged on your insurance.
0 -
The local council and social care ombudsman also can not help. So who regulates the councils? Does this mean they will continue to keep getting away with this knowing they are not regulated?
If the ombudsman can't help, then the answer to the first question would be the voters who can vote the council out at the next election.
If it sticks, force it.
If it breaks, well it wasn't working right anyway.0 -
Which won't change the council staff who actually do things...Ectophile said:The local council and social care ombudsman also can not help. So who regulates the councils? Does this mean they will continue to keep getting away with this knowing they are not regulated?If the ombudsman can't help, then the answer to the first question would be the voters who can vote the council out at the next election.
Think of the councillors as the MPs, and the staff as the civil service.0 -
If they have emailed the pictures to you. There may be some metadata attached to them showing the true date of the picture being took.If the world is a stage... I want better lighting!1
-
I would be trying to prove they have manipulated times and dates on both reports and photos when the work was carried out to make it appear they carried out work in the legal time frames. In my opinion they have not worked to the law and have tried to cover it up.AdrianC said:I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
Let's take those photos out of the equation. So then what? There's no proof they'd logged damage needing repair prior to your damage... That would let them off the hook.0 -
This is a valid point, but they have copied and pasted the photo onto a PDF type document. The camera itself is the only way that could possibly provide that information, but what are the chances of that every appearing in courttheatretony said:If they have emailed the pictures to you. There may be some metadata attached to them showing the true date of the picture being took.
0 -
Is good advice, and extremely hard to admit and forget about. Its mainly the principle driving my motivation to get them as its so obvious what they have done.greyteam1959 said:I would forget all about it myself because there is no way that you will get anything out of the highways department.
And don't forget that if you ring your insurance company about this you will have a 'no fault claim' logged on your insurance.0 -
Ask them for the original photos, if they refuse lodge an FOI request.Bradie10_1 said:
This is a valid point, but they have copied and pasted the photo onto a PDF type document. The camera itself is the only way that could possibly provide that information, but what are the chances of that every appearing in courttheatretony said:If they have emailed the pictures to you. There may be some metadata attached to them showing the true date of the picture being took.0 -
Thank you for advise, this is something I never thought of. Be interesting to see what excuses they come up.Nobbie1967 said:
Ask them for the original photos, if they refuse lodge an FOI request.Bradie10_1 said:
This is a valid point, but they have copied and pasted the photo onto a PDF type document. The camera itself is the only way that could possibly provide that information, but what are the chances of that every appearing in courttheatretony said:If they have emailed the pictures to you. There may be some metadata attached to them showing the true date of the picture being took.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 348.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.5K Spending & Discounts
- 241.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.8K Life & Family
- 254.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards