Pothole Damage Claim Rejected by Manchester City Council

MCR0980898098

Hi everyone,

On 9th Jan I was driving through Manchester and somehow managed to hit a pothole - it was long and narrow but deceptively deep. There were no warning signs, no white circles around it, nothing at all to warn drivers of it.

It completely blew my front tyre and I ended up having to call the RAC as we couldn't drive home. In total the damage cost me about £150 including the RAC call out fee, a new tyre, and wheel alignment. I didn't claim on insurance as I don't think it's worth affecting my premium for this amoount. 

 I submitted a claim to Manchester City Council which was rejected. Their reasoning was that they were made aware of the pothole on 6th Jan and repaired it on 25th Jan, so they have fulfilled their duty of care as per Section 38 of the Highway Code. 

Surely this isn't a reasonable argument, as they were made aware of the pothole before my incident but didn't take any action for nearly 20 days. If they were unable to repair it sooner than 25th Jan then I would expect some warning sign to avoid any further incidents. 

Does anyone have any experience in dealing with this, and do you think the council are liable for the damage? 

Have attached one of the pics I sent to the council to show the depth of the pothole - my husband could fit his whole size 10 foot in it with room to spare. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

If the hole really was as big as it appears in the photo, then there's a perfectly reasonable counter argument that you should have seen it.  My front fence doesn't have a warning sign or white circle round it, but I'd not take kindly to being sued if someone crashed into it.  

emmajones1976

A theoretical for the OP.

Had they repaired it the day after you hit it, would you have started this thread? If not, why not, given the incident would have occurred regardless?

MCR0980898098

emmajones1976 said:

A theoretical for the OP.

Had they repaired it the day after you hit it, would you have started this thread? If not, why not, given the incident would have occurred regardless?

Not sure I understand what you mean. Their argument for rejecting the appeal was they repaired the pothole within 28 days so that waives them of their liablilty. My argument is that if they couldn't repair it sooner then at least put some signage up so that it is more visible. 

MCR0980898098

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

If the hole really was as big as it appears in the photo, then there's a perfectly reasonable counter argument that you should have seen it.  My front fence doesn't have a warning sign or white circle round it, but I'd not take kindly to being sued if someone crashed into it.  

As I said in my original post it is deceptively deep - you can see from the picture that it is long, narrow and deep, as opposed to wide, and so from a distance it is less visible. From the direction we were driving at it wasn't obvious enough to avoid. That's also not why the council rejected the claim - as I also said in my post. 

Not sure why you are comparing it to a front fence. A fence usually isn't in the middle of the road and is visible from at least a mile away. 

DB1904

MCR0980898098 said:

emmajones1976 said:

A theoretical for the OP.

Had they repaired it the day after you hit it, would you have started this thread? If not, why not, given the incident would have occurred regardless?

Not sure I understand what you mean. Their argument for rejecting the appeal was they repaired the pothole within 28 days so that waives them of their liablilty. My argument is that if they couldn't repair it sooner then at least put some signage up so that it is more visible. 

Was there any paint marking the hole? If not then they may not have been out to inspect it so didn't know how bad it was. If they've complied with policy then there's nothing you can do. 

MCR0980898098

DB1904 said:

MCR0980898098 said:

emmajones1976 said:

A theoretical for the OP.

Had they repaired it the day after you hit it, would you have started this thread? If not, why not, given the incident would have occurred regardless?

Not sure I understand what you mean. Their argument for rejecting the appeal was they repaired the pothole within 28 days so that waives them of their liablilty. My argument is that if they couldn't repair it sooner then at least put some signage up so that it is more visible. 

Was there any paint marking the hole? If not then they may not have been out to inspect it so didn't know how bad it was. If they've complied with policy then there's nothing you can do. 

No paint - this was their response:

We can now advise that the location of your incident is subject to regular routine 3 monthly inspection. On the routine inspection undertaken prior to the occurrence of your incident no actionable, or dangerous defects were noted at the incident location.

Prior to your incident, the City Council received notice (06/01/22) of a defect at the index location from a member of the public, in response to which, the City Council raised a works order for repairs to be completed within 28 days. Said repairs were completed 25/01/22.

When I rang the council to report it they said they had already received a number of reports of this pothole.

My argument is that the pothole was reported to them on 6th and they raised a work order to repair it, so if they knew it needed to be repaired they should have made it more visible. My incident was on the 9th so it was after they had already been made aware of the pothole. The reason I bring in the date that they actually repaired it is because it means they left 19 days between the apparent first report and the repair, which means other drivers may have been affected by it in that timeframe. 

Do you think that any fault lies with them?

emmajones1976

No, because as said they have 28 days from report to fix it.

Grey_Critic

***Prior to your incident, the City Council received notice (06/01/22) of a defect at the index location from a member of the public, in response to which, the City Council raised a works order for repairs to be completed within 28 days. Said repairs were completed 25/01/22.***

The Council were aware of a defect following a *reports* from members of the public

We have just been informed that the council have issued a works order for repair of 40 potholes on our road. - The notice states *after inspection* that is the procedure. They don't do it without first inspecting.

So was it inspected prior to the order and when, or did they just issue an order?

cymruchris

MCR0980898098 said:

Do you think that any fault lies with them?

I know this isn't what you want to hear - but no. I don't think any fault lies with them.  They have shown they check the road on a 3 monthly basis - they received first notice of a problem on the 6th, you hit it on the 9th - 6th was a Thursday - 9th was a Sunday - so two of the 'days' in your date range are non-working days for regular maintenance crews. They repaired it within a reasonable time scale.

As with most public services - I can't imagine they have the budget to employ people to go around painting holes separate to the teams repairing holes. As much as they have a duty of care to keep the road in fair order - you have a duty to be aware of the road in front of you, and something that size, even if it was lengthways, would be fairly easy to spot - but if a driver (not saying you) took their eye off the road for a second to change a music track for example - it could easily be hit if full attention hadn't been given. 

This is purely my opinion as you've asked what we think. When living overseas a couple of years ago driving along a pitch black road, I too hit a pot hole. It cracked my sump, and the car needed to be recovered. I didn't see it - I blamed myself for not paying enough attention, but ultimately I was driving, I was in control, I was the one watching the road. Of course, I did whinge a bit at the state of the road to friends, but we all knew what the roads were like in the country I lived in, and laughed it off. I repaired it at extensive cost, and then carried on with life. 

Sandtree

MCR0980898098 said:

DB1904 said:

MCR0980898098 said:

emmajones1976 said:

A theoretical for the OP.

Had they repaired it the day after you hit it, would you have started this thread? If not, why not, given the incident would have occurred regardless?

Not sure I understand what you mean. Their argument for rejecting the appeal was they repaired the pothole within 28 days so that waives them of their liablilty. My argument is that if they couldn't repair it sooner then at least put some signage up so that it is more visible. 

Was there any paint marking the hole? If not then they may not have been out to inspect it so didn't know how bad it was. If they've complied with policy then there's nothing you can do. 

No paint - this was their response:

We can now advise that the location of your incident is subject to regular routine 3 monthly inspection. On the routine inspection undertaken prior to the occurrence of your incident no actionable, or dangerous defects were noted at the incident location.

Prior to your incident, the City Council received notice (06/01/22) of a defect at the index location from a member of the public, in response to which, the City Council raised a works order for repairs to be completed within 28 days. Said repairs were completed 25/01/22.

When I rang the council to report it they said they had already received a number of reports of this pothole.

My argument is that the pothole was reported to them on 6th and they raised a work order to repair it, so if they knew it needed to be repaired they should have made it more visible. My incident was on the 9th so it was after they had already been made aware of the pothole. The reason I bring in the date that they actually repaired it is because it means they left 19 days between the apparent first report and the repair, which means other drivers may have been affected by it in that timeframe. 

Do you think that any fault lies with them?

The 6th is the date that someone probably filled in an online form that isnt necessarily the date that someone had an opportunity to read the report (especially as it was a Sunday) nor that the report accurately indicated the size of the problem nor location. 

Have a look at Pothole Claims: How to claim for pothole damage - MSE (moneysavingexpert.com) which is this site's guide to making claims... unfortunately its not black and white nor is there a set timescale in which potholes must be repaired. Most councils have a risk based approach so if its been described as a small pothole at the edge of a side road it'll get a different response to if its been reported as a crater right in the middle of the main A road into town.