Pothole damage claim.

HillStreetBlues

I would be showing all my cards as this is more likely to get a early settlement.
If you have a screen print of pot-hole info that is on the 21st Oct 2021 but this had now vanished I certainly would be looking into that. If someone has deleted that info to prevent a claim  for any court  that's a big no-no, also wondering if that should have been part of the FOI (but don't know)
A bit of research would be good to see if the damage is consistent to what happens when you hit a pot hole.

I would take a bit of time drafting a LBA  highlighting that you have proof of hitting pot-hole (dash-cam), proof of damage (repair bill and any photos), proof of damage is consistent with a  pot-hole (if you can get this) proof they knew about it (screen print) proof the it's been deleted (if that's happened) proof that high likelihood score (3) (council supplied that, and you agree)  proof the council is wrong in a 1 rating (damage shows that). Stating all this will be part of your evidence when you file a court claim, if council refuses to settle.

1990xrider

Thank you. I have compiled so far a multi page report outlying all the facts, even eliminating the chance of the car already being damaged by showing the MOT history, MOT done just a few months before and no damage relating to suspension links etc which were part of the damage found. I will send this report and a skimmed down version to the council . If they say no I will then go to the SMC 

HillStreetBlues said:

I would be showing all my cards as this is more likely to get a early settlement.
If you have a screen print of pot-hole info that is on the 21st Oct 2021 but this had now vanished I certainly would be looking into that. If someone has deleted that info to prevent a claim  for any court  that's a big no-no, also wondering if that should have been part of the FOI (but don't know)
A bit of research would be good to see if the damage is consistent to what happens when you hit a pot hole.

I would take a bit of time drafting a LBA  highlighting that you have proof of hitting pot-hole (dash-cam), proof of damage (repair bill and any photos), proof of damage is consistent with a  pot-hole (if you can get this) proof they knew about it (screen print) proof the it's been deleted (if that's happened) proof that high likelihood score (3) (council supplied that, and you agree)  proof the council is wrong in a 1 rating (damage shows that). Stating all this will be part of your evidence when you file a court claim, if council refuses to settle.

HillStreetBlues said:

I would be showing all my cards as this is more likely to get a early settlement.
If you have a screen print of pot-hole info that is on the 21st Oct 2021 but this had now vanished I certainly would be looking into that. If someone has deleted that info to prevent a claim  for any court  that's a big no-no, also wondering if that should have been part of the FOI (but don't know)
A bit of research would be good to see if the damage is consistent to what happens when you hit a pot hole.

I would take a bit of time drafting a LBA  highlighting that you have proof of hitting pot-hole (dash-cam), proof of damage (repair bill and any photos), proof of damage is consistent with a  pot-hole (if you can get this) proof they knew about it (screen print) proof the it's been deleted (if that's happened) proof that high likelihood score (3) (council supplied that, and you agree)  proof the council is wrong in a 1 rating (damage shows that). Stating all this will be part of your evidence when you file a court claim, if council refuses to settle.

1990xrider

I thought it might be a separate thing to prove they inaccurately assessed the pothole /rejected the claim and that they were negligent but actually it seems like I really have got a case and that they were negligent..the council said in their rejection letter 

"As this defect is not considered to be dangerous, we do not accept that Essex County Council 

has been negligent in its duties to maintain the highway, as set out in Section 41 of the 

Highways Act 1980."

Whilst the council haven't explicitly defined dangerous the pothole actually is in category 1 by their own definition thus requiring a repair within 5 days thus to be considered dangerous.

But have seen then if it is considered dangerous negligence on the councils part must be proved. Assume for this the fact it has been left for 18 months without repair would point to this?

1990xrider

So update sent off another foi asking for details on the October 2021 report and asking for the details of the inspection that year..

According to the most recent report the one I reported after I hit my car, it was deemed that "action required" suggesting it was an "actionable defect". Yet the October 2022 annual inspection of the road revealed "no actionable defects". So is the council lying, they've missed it, or they didn't consider it actionable by then but by may they did? I have annecdotes reports of cars getting damaged at that pothole aroun December 2022. The winter was quite dry in England I believe whereas rain can help potholes form. 

If they did omiss the pothole does that give me a defence that they were negligent and didn't act reasonably under s58 of the highways act 1980?

Got the road maintenance log extended showing the period commencing from the 1st October 2021. Again, no actionable defects. Yet the information on the track it site suggested that actually a defect had been identified . 

Interestingly I note . The 2021 inspection was on October 18th. 2022 inspection was on November 23rd. That's over 13 months after the previous inspection when on local roads such as this the policy is every 12 months and meant to take place in October. Only a month out, but a technicality perhaps , a technicality I can exploit to add to the argument they were negligble?!

1990xrider

Got a few witnesses one from just two weeks ago! Their car tyre was burst and rim damaged after going through the hole. Another was in 2022. They have agreed that I can include their names when speaking to the council..

It seems like the pothole might be deeper than the council assessment? Given one car was "beached" and my car has a clearance depth of six inches, yet ECC said it was 3 inches deep. If I can get close to proving that the hole was deeper than what they measured, by calling on these witnesses etc and also I'm looking at consulting highways experts or people with that background, can I make the argument of negligence that way? I'm out of the country right now so can tgo down to measure the hole myself. But I'm wondering if they only measured above the water level not below it

1990xrider

Ok newsflash! @HillStreetBlues

I've just checked the councils pothole portal again. Yesterday I spoke to one witness I will use who had his car damaged. Yesterday he reported the pothole on the defect system. I can see on the council system, though it doesn't specify a date, that in August 2023 the road was inspected, and the latest update now reads

"We've investigated and assessed this issue. We have assigned this to a team to progress the scheduling of works".

So I'm pleased it seems like they've realised that actually, this is a dangerous pothole and they need to repair it. How does this help me though? Because if they repair it I won't be able to measure the original pothole. Will this latest admission that the pothole is dangerous per their most recent inspection essentially destroy their previous ruling when the road was inspected in May after my accident?