Pothole Damage Claim Rejected by Manchester City Council

KimJongUn88

s.58 of the Highways Act 1980 provides them with the defence upon which the seek to rely.

They took appropriate action to remedy the defect within a period that they considered to be reasonable. If this went to Court, their defence would most likely succeed.

If you’re not happy, issue proceedings against them and test their Defence.

MCR0980898098

KimJongUn88 said:

s.58 of the Highways Act 1980 provides them with the defence upon which the seek to rely.

They took appropriate action to remedy the defect within a period that they considered to be reasonable. If this went to Court, their defence would most likely succeed.

If you’re not happy, issue proceedings against them and test their Defence.

I did have a look at S58 and part (e) does make reference to what warning signs they have displayed

user1977

MCR0980898098 said:

KimJongUn88 said:

s.58 of the Highways Act 1980 provides them with the defence upon which the seek to rely.

They took appropriate action to remedy the defect within a period that they considered to be reasonable. If this went to Court, their defence would most likely succeed.

If you’re not happy, issue proceedings against them and test their Defence.

I did have a look at S58 and part (e) does make reference to what warning signs they have displayed

Yes. Which doesn't mean they must display any warning notices, just that they could form part of their defence if they had. But so can the other criteria listed.

Bigphil1474

OP, it is unfortunate for you, but I don't think you have any hope of getting anything from Manchester council. Given the 1000's of miles of roads most councils have responsibility for, they would get a lot of pothole reports on a weekly basis. They won't have had people sat waiting to hear that this particular road had a pothole on it, so they could rush down and fix it or spray paint it before you came along. 
At the council I work for, we have a standard 5 days (1 working week) to respond to any complaints (or service requests as they are now known), and even that first response might be just to put a job on a list for a visit. Even if they had visited and repaired it within a week (which would be quick), it would have made no difference to you.

RogerBareford

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?

As someone above pointed out the 6th January was a Thursday. So they had a most 1 working day from when it was reported until your incident occurred. Do you honeslty think it was reasonable for them to process the report and then book and send out an inspection team in just 1 working day?

They don't have people in the office and inspection teams just sitting round waiting for reports of potholes and then rushing out the same day to go look at every report issued. The inspeciton team will have thier work booked in advance for the routes they are inspecting and it will take several days atleast to process the reports and then adjust their routes to go look.

I just don't understand how you think it would have reasonble for them to even go look at the pothole before your incident nevermind fix it.

MCR0980898098

RogerBareford said:

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?

As someone above pointed out the 6th January was a Thursday. So they had a most 1 working day from when it was reported until your incident occurred. Do you honeslty think it was reasonable for them to process the report and then book and send out an inspection team in just 1 working day?

They don't have people in the office and inspection teams just sitting round waiting for reports of potholes and then rushing out the same day to go look at every report issued. The inspeciton team will have thier work booked in advance for the routes they are inspecting and it will take several days atleast to process the reports and then adjust their routes to go look.

I just don't understand how you think it would have reasonble for them to even go look at the pothole before your incident nevermind fix it.

A simple google search will show you the hundreds of articles (including an article posted by moneysavingexpert) which say that motorists can claim for pothole damage. Each article varies so I came here to ask for further advice from anyone who may have more experience with it. 

Rather than posting a condescending comment to someone genuinely looking for advice, try and offer helpful guidance, or just don't post anything at all. 

Sandtree

MCR0980898098 said:

RogerBareford said:

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?

As someone above pointed out the 6th January was a Thursday. So they had a most 1 working day from when it was reported until your incident occurred. Do you honeslty think it was reasonable for them to process the report and then book and send out an inspection team in just 1 working day?

They don't have people in the office and inspection teams just sitting round waiting for reports of potholes and then rushing out the same day to go look at every report issued. The inspeciton team will have thier work booked in advance for the routes they are inspecting and it will take several days atleast to process the reports and then adjust their routes to go look.

I just don't understand how you think it would have reasonble for them to even go look at the pothole before your incident nevermind fix it.

A simple google search will show you the hundreds of articles (including an article posted by moneysavingexpert) which say that motorists can claim for pothole damage. Each article varies so I came here to ask for further advice from anyone who may have more experience with it. 

Rather than posting a condescending comment to someone genuinely looking for advice, try and offer helpful guidance, or just don't post anything at all. 

A simple google will also say you can claim for every slip and trip but unsurprisingly most those articles are written by companies who sell leads to solicitors of people that have slipped or tripped and the reality is that many cannot be claimed for. Articles are good cheap marketing and if you are lucky other people blindly copy it and leave the reference to your service in it.

As you will have seen from the MSE article there is a duty of care to maintain the road however all duties of care are finite and the courts consider what is reasonable. Ultimately no one knows what the judge would say were you to take the council to court or even if the council would allow it to go to court rather than settling on a without prejudice/goodwill basis. 

If someone expresses an opinion you dont like and explains how they got to that opinion it doesnt make it condescending nor unhelpful. "Roger" was pointing out exactly the sorts of things the council's defence would and what the judge would be considering when deciding who should win (and who has to pay for his time etc)

RogerBareford

MCR0980898098 said:

RogerBareford said:

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?

As someone above pointed out the 6th January was a Thursday. So they had a most 1 working day from when it was reported until your incident occurred. Do you honeslty think it was reasonable for them to process the report and then book and send out an inspection team in just 1 working day?

They don't have people in the office and inspection teams just sitting round waiting for reports of potholes and then rushing out the same day to go look at every report issued. The inspeciton team will have thier work booked in advance for the routes they are inspecting and it will take several days atleast to process the reports and then adjust their routes to go look.

I just don't understand how you think it would have reasonble for them to even go look at the pothole before your incident nevermind fix it.

A simple google search will show you the hundreds of articles (including an article posted by moneysavingexpert) which say that motorists can claim for pothole damage. Each article varies so I came here to ask for further advice from anyone who may have more experience with it. 

Rather than posting a condescending comment to someone genuinely looking for advice, try and offer helpful guidance, or just don't post anything at all. 

Yes there are plenty of people who sucesfully claim for pothole damage. But you have put in a claim and they have come back rejecting it and explained why, but you think their arguement is unreasonable.

I wasn't being condesending at all, in the OP you said "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". So i was trying to understand how you thought it wasn't reasonable that they didn't respond in 1 working day to a report of a pothole.

So i decided to explain why i thought it was perfectly resonable and to understand why you think it isn't.

[Deleted User]

Dear Mr T      

Pothole Damage Claim Rejected by West Berkshire Council

Damage to Vehicle – Brimpton Lane, Brimpton – 1st January 2022    

 

Further to our email of 4th January 2022, the Council has now completed its investigation into this incident.

 

As previously advised, there is no automatic right to compensation for this incident. Although something has happened, it does not mean that the Council is responsible. Compensation will only be payable where it is proven that the Council is in breach of its statutory duty.

 

S 41 of the Highways Act 1980 places a duty on a Highway Authority (West Berkshire Council) to maintain the fabric of the publicly adopted highway (both footway and carriageway) to a reasonable standard. The Council cannot however ensure that the road is in a perfect condition and free from defects at all times.

 

In order to meet its duty, the Council has in place a regime of inspections that comply with the recommendations set out in the “Well-managed Highway Infrastructure” Code of Practice (October 2016), a national publication.

 

S 58 of the Highways Act provides the Highway Authority with a statutory defence to a claim, if it can show that it has taken all reasonable measures to ensure that the adopted highway is safe to use. If a statutory defence can be applied to a claim, then no compensation will be paid.

 

The incident location is subject to a monthly driven inspection. The last inspection prior to this incident was carried out on 13th December 2021. No defects were noted at the incident location that required the Council to take any action.

 

Not every disturbance in a publicly adopted highway will be repaired automatically.

Each Highway Authority will determine which defects require repair by setting an “investigatory level”, i.e. the level or size that a defect has to reach before a repair is considered.

 

It is inevitable that defects will appear from time to time between the Council’s scheduled inspections. The Council will be unaware of the presence of such defects until the time of the next scheduled inspection or unless the defect is reported to us by a member of the public.

 

In this instance, the Council was not aware of the pothole until it was reported to us by you on 2nd January 2022.

Following this notification, a Highways Technician visited the site and placed a 28 working day order for a permanent repair of the defect which was completed on 6th January 2022.

 

The action taken post-accident, i.e. the repair cannot be construed as an admission of liability. The Council has an on-going duty to members of the public to repair hazards or defects as appropriate as and when we are made aware.

 

There were no other reports of a defect in this location received from members of the public prior to your incident.

There was unfortunately nothing that the Council could have done to prevent your incident occurring.

 

In light of the above, I am unable to consider a claim for compensation for the damage to your vehicle. I believe that the action taken by the Council was appropriate in all the circumstances.

 

I appreciate that this is not the answer you are seeking and whilst the Council is sympathetic to your loss, this incident has not occurred as a result of any breach of statutory duty on the part of the Council.