Pothole claim rejected - section 58. Any advice please?

thebands

Hi all,

I submitted a claim to Norfolk County Council for a replacement tyre (£188) damaged by a pothole on a country road.
The claim was rejected by the council stating defence under section 58. The section 58 defence is available when it can be shown that the Highway Authority has "taken reasonable care as in all circumstances was reasonably required to secure that part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous to traffic".

The pothole had been previously reported to the council on 14/07 and I hit the pothole on 02/08.
The council says "it is unfortunate that your incident occurred on 02/08 but this was within the timescale for the repairs to be completed"

They don't say when the pothole was inspected. What, if any, action was taken at the time, or when the pothole was filled. There were no traffic cones or warning signs left near the pothole. 

The pothole itself was a huge crater but hidden in deep shadow, obscured by road debris, filled with water and close to a junction. I hit the pothole as my attention was focused on the junction and it was far from obvious that there was a pothole. See attached photos.

I am left wondering how the council came to the conclusion that it has taken reasonable care to ensure that the pothole was not dangerous to traffic? 

Am I within my rights to ask them for the full set of records i.e the Policy, the original pothole report, the inspection report and the conclusions as to why it was not a danger ?  What are my options re next steps?


Many thanks.

Ebe_Scrooge

thebands said:

Hi all,

I submitted a claim to Norfolk County Council for a replacement tyre (£188) damaged by a pothole

.......

What are my options re next steps?

If it were me, I'd be changing my car for one where the tyres didn't cost £188 apiece !

thebands

Ebe_Scrooge said:

thebands said:

Hi all,

I submitted a claim to Norfolk County Council for a replacement tyre (£188) damaged by a pothole

.......

What are my options re next steps?

If it were me, I'd be changing my car for one where the tyres didn't cost £188 apiece !

Really helpful response. Thanks.

k3lvc

thebands said:

I am left wondering how the council came to the conclusion that it has taken reasonable care to ensure that the pothole was not dangerous to traffic? 

Am I within my rights to ask them for the full set of records i.e the Policy, the original pothole report, the inspection report and the conclusions as to why it was not a danger ?  What are my options re next steps?

Because judging by your pic it's in the !!!!!! end of nowhere and a road with low traffic volume (and therefore risk) - there may well be some formal response/timeline etc you can push for based on repair time etc but how do you know it was reported on 14/7 ?

Personally, unhelpful though you may find it, you've a high element of responsibility here - single track road, wet loose surface with puddle(s), shadows on ground and approaching an unclear junction - I'm not sure how you can have been going fast enough to have caused significant damage 

thebands

I know it was reported on the 14/07 because it shows on their own website and they acknowledged that it had been reported as such.

The road conditions were not wet, it was dry and sunny at the time as per the 1st picture with huge contrast behind the sunny and shaded areas. The pothole is in deep shade (covered by overhead trees) with lots of road debris and full of water.

Immediately before the picture above is a sharp left hand bend so I wouldn't have been going more than 20mph. My car has stiff sports suspension setup with Run Flat Tyres and the impact of the pothole caused the inner sidewall to fail.

KimJongUn88

If they’re denying liability, the next step is to sue them in the Small Claims Court.