Actions before small claims court with council

sevenhills

1990xrider said:

\i'm not sure; I'm not a mechanic. 
The car was fourteen years old, I don't know if they had been replaced before.
However if the pothole accelerated the demise of an ageing part to me (and i believe a court) that is still something the council is liable for as had I not hit the hole it may not have occured. The fact that this happened in the aftermath of hitting the hole would have to be a huge coincidence.

Things such as - New front suspension links + labour cost 

New shock absorbers + labour costs are regular items that are replaced at the MOT, very few people will sue for compensation.

On my car the front Coil spring was fractured and replaced in 2020, but just one side.

Perhaps you should know more and understand these issues?

LightFlare

1990xrider said:

sevenhills said:

1990xrider said:

£366.01 
Included 

New front suspension links + labour cost 
New shock absorbers + labour cost

The video I have shown them quite clearly shows the front left of the car dip into the hole and I'm only going at walking pace (2mph)

Surely any damage caused by a pothole would only cause damage to one side, or did the pothole cover the entire width of the road?

How old is the car, have these shock absorbers been replaced before etc.

\i'm not sure; I'm not a mechanic. 
The car was fourteen years old, I don't know if they had been replaced before.
However if the pothole accelerated the demise of an ageing part to me (and i believe a court) that is still something the council is liable for as had I not hit the hole it may not have occured. The fact that this happened in the aftermath of hitting the hole would have to be a huge coincidence.

I hope you have something a bit more definite than this.

Have you anything to suggest would not?

On a 14 year old car, those parts were likely at or near end of life anyway.

Did it break when you hit the pothole? Yes
Was the pothole to blame? No (imo) - it would/could have failed at any time

1990xrider

sevenhills said:

1990xrider said:

\i'm not sure; I'm not a mechanic. 
The car was fourteen years old, I don't know if they had been replaced before.
However if the pothole accelerated the demise of an ageing part to me (and i believe a court) that is still something the council is liable for as had I not hit the hole it may not have occured. The fact that this happened in the aftermath of hitting the hole would have to be a huge coincidence.

Things such as - New front suspension links + labour cost 

New shock absorbers + labour costs are regular items that are replaced at the MOT, very few people will sue for compensation.

On my car the front Coil spring was fractured and replaced in 2020, but just one side.

Perhaps you should know more and understand these issues?

Yes, except the MOT was done 2 months to the day before the accident and no faults relating to shock absorbers or even advisories were found. Of course, you could argue the fault materialised in those two months but as  the actual symptoms occured after the accident I'd argue that the former scenario is not the case.

My understanding is that civil cases like this rest on the balance of probabilities, and that so long as I surpass the 50% threshold, my case will be upheld. 

Even then, they could merely discredit this part of the claim but uphold the rest, which is still a success in my opinion. 

The fact is I have proved the road is dangerous and the council did not take remedial action over the course of a four year period, hence why the council's only defence is to deny the fact that the pothole caused the damage. 

Of course, the court and the council's defence could argue if one part of the claim is invalid, perhaps the rest is too, but like I said, I believe once the judge sees the dashcam footage of the road and the photos/videos/measurement I have of the hole showing just how huge it is there will be little to no doubt that the damage occured because of the hole. 

1990xrider

LightFlare said:

1990xrider said:

sevenhills said:

1990xrider said:

£366.01 
Included 

New front suspension links + labour cost 
New shock absorbers + labour cost

The video I have shown them quite clearly shows the front left of the car dip into the hole and I'm only going at walking pace (2mph)

Surely any damage caused by a pothole would only cause damage to one side, or did the pothole cover the entire width of the road?

How old is the car, have these shock absorbers been replaced before etc.

\i'm not sure; I'm not a mechanic. 
The car was fourteen years old, I don't know if they had been replaced before.
However if the pothole accelerated the demise of an ageing part to me (and i believe a court) that is still something the council is liable for as had I not hit the hole it may not have occured. The fact that this happened in the aftermath of hitting the hole would have to be a huge coincidence.

I hope you have something a bit more definite than this.

Have you anything to suggest would not?

On a 14 year old car, those parts were likely at or near end of life anyway.

Did it break when you hit the pothole? Yes
Was the pothole to blame? No (imo) - it would/could have failed at any time

It will be interesting to see. But I believe if the pothole accelerated the demise of a car park that is still at fault. Yes it would have failed eventually but you could argue that suspension links could also fail eventually, or any car part for that matter. 

The symptoms arose in the aftermath of the impact. 

Going back to my actual question though, where do I send the court the court fee money? I can't see anywhere on the letter where it says it has to be paid, and when is a good time to send evidence?

1990xrider

Got some new FOI data relating to an inspection in august this year.

Confusion reigns! There are three potholes. There is the pothole which they attempted to tell me was the one i hit , one of just 70mm in depth. 

The second is a "verge overrun" of 140mm, the one which I said had existed since 2019. The coordinates given match the pothole I hit but it says it was fixed (they mean they put a sign there), which was not the case for the defect I hit. There is a third one, which I haven't seen before, which roughly corresponds with the dimensions of the hole I hit (but is nearly 100mm off from the depth of 200mm). But like the verge overrun its risk assesed as 9 requiring repair within 2 days. 

rigolith

For injuries it doesn't matter if you had existing conditions, brittle bones or whatever. They are still liable for the entirely of your health problems afterwards.

While it's not exactly the same as damage to a vehicle, the argument that some stuff may have been "due" or heavily worn before probably won't get very far. Aside from the principle, they won't have an evidence and you have an MOT.

1990xrider

rigolith said:

For injuries it doesn't matter if you had existing conditions, brittle bones or whatever. They are still liable for the entirely of your health problems afterwards.

While it's not exactly the same as damage to a vehicle, the argument that some stuff may have been "due" or heavily worn before probably won't get very far. Aside from the principle, they won't have an evidence and you have an MOT.

Thank you, yes, this is my point. 

However my main concern now is relating to whether I can actually prove the pothole was known to the council.

I thought I could - but it seems like there is another even bigger pothole on that section, and potentially a third, all in close proximity there is confusion as to which pothole is which. 

GSV shows the defect in August 2018, though nowhere near as big as it is now, routine inspection of the road in november 2022 did not note any "actionable" defects but note the word "actionable", it seems they don't bother recording defects which don't meet the criteria of actionable. 

1990xrider

Ok I'm now stuck on how best to proceed. 
Any advice here? 

Part of me is telling me to keep going , the other half is telling me to discontinue but both choices risk the same outcome 

cw8825

1990xrider said:

Ok I'm now stuck on how best to proceed. 
Any advice here? 

Part of me is telling me to keep going , the other half is telling me to discontinue but both choices risk the same outcome 

discontinue
how much is the claim worth? How much is your time worth?
In the grand scheme of things even if you were to win - which from past histories is unlikely. It will have cost you more in time and effort compared to what you could get get back

1990xrider

I discontinued, I spokle to the solicitors and asked if I discontinued the claim would they agree not to try and charge me any costs, they agreed, and I sent off the n279 and the court confirmed it had been discontinued. 

I believe I would have won but upon discovering the possibility the council may not have known about the hole, even though it was 100% there (as evidenced by GSV), it wasn't worth it. Still an interesting experience and i've learnt a lot.