Recent pot hole claim

lousomerville

Hi all, new here but reaching out for advice. 

Recently hit a pot hole travelling on a dual carriage way that caused tyre to bulge. Went ahead and got a new tyre and the garage noted the damage was consistent with pot hole damage. Reported the claim to national highways  who then gave me a reference number. 

Proceeded to make a ‘red’ claim. Anyway filled out all details asked for and sent pics of tyre and copy of invoice for how much a new tyre cost us. 

Have heard back and they have rejected claim stating…
‘Prior to your incident, the last safety inspection was carried out on 08 March 2023, but no safety critical defects were identified. On the day of your incident, a National Highways inspector reported this defect at 06:41 and a crew completed a repair by 11:36 that same morning, within the timeframe for safety critical defects.

It would therefore appear that the fault developed between the last inspection and your incident. Although the carriageway is inspected on a regular basis, defects can sometimes arise between inspections due to normal wear and tear; small cracks in the surface of the tarmac, which absorb damp, can break up rapidly when affected by water, oil or severe weather. It is not always reasonably possible to foresee this process until material begins to break out.

The existence of a defect does not in itself constitute a legal liability, similarly the repair of a defect is also not an admission of liability. The Courts have held that the highway authority cannot be on hand at all times, to repair or put right each & every defect the moment it arises.’
I am so annoyed about this. They have said I can only dispute this decision if I can provide further evidence and not just based on my disagreement with their decision. 

I have been driving (and paying Road tax!) for nearly 20 years and have never made a claim for pothole damage ever. I just ask where is the accountability here? 

I get that the roads are a state and pot holes are coming up left right and centre but this pothole could have caused a serious accident for vehicles travelling on a wet dual carriage way at higher speeds. I wonder how many claims they actually do pay out for or does everyone get the same response I did?
interested to hear if anyone has made a successful claim against national highways recently please! 

Nobbie1967

It’s frustrating, but as long as the authority responsible for the road has complied with it’s inspection and repair standards then it’s just one of the many costs of motoring like replacing a cracked windscreen when a stone is flicked up by another car. Nobody has been negligent so you don’t have a claim.

greyteam1959

Most pothole claims are rejected on that basis.
Waste of time pursuing it any further 
 

s5555

Hi, I am a newbie to this forum and reaching out to you folks for advice. I hit a pothole end of 2022, resulting in nearly £900 of damage (had to replace dented wheel rim and tyre the pothole was so deep). I was completely immobilised - 5.5 hours waiting to be recovered, and 1.5 hours to be taken home on a low loader. All very stressful. Claim submitted in Feb, and no response received from county council. Only received a ref number and a date for their reply, which has now passed..and still no response. What do you recommend to do next if councils are not responding to claims? Can this be escalated anywhere? 

Ectophile

Can this be escalated anywhere?

Yes.  It's called the small claims procedure at the county court!

It is never in the council's interest to admit responsibility.  So all claims will be rejected.  If councils don't have enough money to repair the roads, they don't have enough money to pay out on pothole claims either.

Bigphil1474

s5555 - they will pay out if the road hasn't been inspected within their guidelines, and/or any identified repairs weren't carried out in line with the same guidelines. If the pothole appeared a day after they inspected and they didn't pick it up before your incident, then they won't pay out. They simply can't be checking every road every day.
In your case, I would contact the council again, and advise them that you will submit a complaint against the service if they don't respond as promised. If they then don't, try your local councillor, and put in a  complaint. I work for a council and it really annoys me when other council workers don't do what they say they'll do, even if they tell you what you don't want to hear.

rookie4ever

Ectophile said:

Can this be escalated anywhere?

Yes.  It's called the small claims procedure at the county court!

It is never in the council's interest to admit responsibility.  So all claims will be rejected.  If councils don't have enough money to repair the roads, they don't have enough money to pay out on pothole claims either.

I'm going down this route at the moment, there are numerous potholes on the road, they are not repairing them. There were roadworks and this was route I could take, didn't realise the damage until the next day. As my tyre pressure went dwn and it would not fill up again (sister took to garage who confirmed the damage was likely from a pothole)

Council rejected claim and I have gone to small claims, when I asked for a FOI about myself (as they sent the information to an incorrect email) I can see some internal emails advising if it's under £500 to honour and if it's more take it through the insurance route. My claim was £270. They still said no. The Oudbudsman said take it to court (not really sure what kind of response that is)

The council have so far probably paid a few thousand to lawyers (as they changed lawyers when I filed with small claims). So not really sure that not having money is an issue as they are paying for the lawyers. And 1 senior associate quoted "ones v Longley & Other [2015] EWHC 3362" to say that if I represent myself then I shouldn't expect any sympathy from the court (even though that case is about an inheritance and the claimant gave an 1000 page claim, I have 1 with receipts). Then stated she would not be giving me legal counsel (I never asked for any and tbh she's quite patronising in all her emails).

Council even state that they have offered to pay the majority of the costs (they haven't), state the road is their responsibility and then say it's all my own fault as I hadn't reported it before my wheel rim was damaged (loads of potholes on road after their supposed inspection, I took photos) and the pothole was filled up within the next 2 working days (none of the rest have been even though I have advised the council of them several times).

What seems quite unfair is that the roads for the affluent neighbourhood (1 road away from me) has no potholes and all the streets near me of less affluent people have at least 5. It's the same council, just different priorities for the rich who can afford lawyers and for the working class who cannot it appears.

I'm in 2 minds in following it up as I'm thinking if I lose I would have to pay for the councils lawyers, who were probably not cheap, which might be the reason why patronising lawyer lady said you should not carry on as you will get into further debt.

DullGreyGuy

rookie4ever said:
when I asked for a FOI about myself (as they sent the information to an incorrect email) I can see some internal emails advising if it's under £500 to honour and if it's more take it through the insurance route. 

That was a SAR not a FOI... FOI is for non-personal information, they cannot give anything under FOI that would identify an individual. SAR is under data protection law and explicitly is asking an organisation about data they hold on you.

rookie4ever said:
I'm in 2 minds in following it up as I'm thinking if I lose I would have to pay for the councils lawyers, who were probably not cheap, which might be the reason why patronising lawyer lady said you should not carry on as you will get into further debt.

Only in exceptional circumstances can anything more than a token amount be claimed for legal fees in the Small Track (claims under £10,000)

Ectophile said:

Can this be escalated anywhere?

Yes.  It's called the small claims procedure at the county court!

The poster says they've sent one letter and have no material response yet... they havent sent a letter before action and would risk costs being awarded against them for not following the pre-action protocols. 

As the other poster's council's lawyers pointed out, the court dont excuse people from not following the rules just because they are self representing. 

Alshe

My car hit a pothole on 29th December 2023. It went down the hole with such force that it snapped a shock absorber. Costing me £515. I reported the pothole and put in a claim early January. This was rejected so I sent in another claim using the templates letters on here. It was rejected. I then asked for a FOI and put in another claim , that was also rejected but they did offer me £100 as a gesture of goodwill, no way am I accepting that..😡 
Their argument is, I should have straddled the pothole . I didn’t see it , I was looking at the car in front of me. They also say there was only one report on that pothole , not true. When I reported it there was well over 50 reports ( wish I’d done a screenshot) The FOI shows only 3 . On the 6th January, 6 days after my incident, an assessment was done , stating it was very damaged and being a main A20 road with busses, he was surprised that this had not been addressed before there was an accident with a motorcycle or cycle having a nasty accident. Apparently I can’t claim on this as the enquiry number changed when it was assessed. Surely that can’t be right when it’s the same pothole. If anyone on here can advise me on this I would be very grateful? 

A few days ago I requested a full history report on that pothole. 

Mildly_Miffed

Alshe said:

My car hit a pothole on 29th December 2023.
...
Their argument is, I should have straddled the pothole . I didn’t see it , I was looking at the car in front of me.

Your car hit it - but you were responsible for directing where your car was going.

How close were you to the car in front that you couldn't possibly have been expected to see that? Was that edge facing you or away?

However - legally - "You could have avoided it" is not a defence for National Highways, only the documented fault report, inspection and repair logs are.

That's clearly had several repairs in the past, and the broken-away area could easily have developed into that HUGE edge rapidly.