Actions before small claims court with council

MattMattMattUK

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

You hit a stationary object/obstruction. The point of the insurance company knowing is that you are required to tell them as per your insurance agreement. Once you go to court there is evidence that states that the incident occurred.

1990xrider said:

If their sole criteria for repairing it is depth...

They gave me the measurements of the pothole when they inspected it in may. I have asked for the measurements when inspected in August. If there is a large discrepancy between the two I will argue it is improbable for a pothole to have increased by a significant size within three months etc. I will also argue the council had ample , a reasonable amount of time within the 18 months leading up to my accident to repair. 

Potholes can increase significantly in depth, width and breadth very quickly, or very slowly, it depends on a range of factors, the very wet July being one that has made many worse.

1990xrider said:

The council's own criteria determined road users had a 61-80% chance of hitting the hole, more or less exonerating the driver from fault . Being filled with water would have also disguised the potholes true depth. The pothole was measured as a metre in width. The road is 3.4m in width. This means when you take the pothole from the equation the road was only 2.4m which is well below the 3.5m minimum width threshold outlined by the government in respect of country roads 

If you think that exonerates the driver then you have a flawed understanding of the law. 

1990xrider said:

I have other road users who have experienced damage one just a few weeks ago and they will be making witness statements when the court asks if it gets that far. 

That is not relevant to liability, which is strictly defined.

1990xrider said:

Ultimately the council deemed it to not be dangerous and believed the pothole would only cause a jarring to passengers. So their own assessment was flawed as video evidence shows the impact on the car and I have the quotes for repairs (they haven't accused me of fabricating anything either). In an ideal world I would have gone back after taking the first pictures and drained the hole and measured but am away and the council fixed it just yesterday . I wonder if they are monitoring these sorts of forums. A person who had their car damaged by the hole did manage to measure it (no pictures) and measured it as 280mm, a very stark contrast to the 70mm the council measured.   

They do not monitor these kind of forums, they will almost certainly have a published maintenance schedule and an FOI would show when the repair was scheduled and then actioned. The repair could have been scheduled, it may have been actioned because an accelerated deterioration was noted etc. 

1990xrider said:

I will give them ten working dags from the date the email was sent, then I will send them a letter (and email) informing them they will be facing claim action

You need to make sure you actually have a case first and from what you have posted I am not sure you actually do. Now do not get me wrong, I know it is annoying, in March I had a tyre ripped off a wheel in a pot hole that was totally filled with was filled with water during heavy rain, I was only doing 16 MPH at the time according to my dashcam so it was not as if I was driving recklessly, but after going through it I did not have a valid claim due. So after having that happen, having to change a wheel at one in the morning in torrential rain and then get a new tyre I was not best pleased, but spending more time getting angry over it and ultimately getting nowhere was not going to benefit me. 

Car_54

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

Insurance companies class claims as fault or non-fault: black or white, no grey area. Any claim where they are unable to recover their costs is "at fault".

You need to read your policy docs. You are almost certainly obliged do inform them.

1990xrider

So according to ECCs criteria, a pothole "consequence" score is graded 1-4. Based on their own criteria 

A score of 1 (which they assigned me) is a "negligble" impact, which they defined as a "minor jarring to passengers". 

A score of 2 is "minor" which includes scratching of car rims. 

A score of 3 is "noticeable" which includes burst tyre. 

A score of 4 is just defined as "major car damage". I would not say mine was major so I believe a score of 3 was appropriate given it is clearly more serious than 2 and the car was unsafe to drive without suspension links

So unless they believe I am fabricating car repair invoices  and essentially commiting fraud against their insurers, there is no way the score they gave me was correct. 

The last road inspection was over a month later than it should have been with no reason given. It should have been inspected every 12 months. 

The council were aware of the pothole in October 2021. Shortly after my claim was determined they removed the reference to the October 2021 report from their website, which I screenshotfed before they deleted. 

18 months is a very reasonable amount of time for a road to be repaired and combined with multiple people reporting damage that would again undermine any belief they have I am somehow not being honest and that their assessment was flawed 

1990xrider

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

You hit a stationary object/obstruction. The point of the insurance company knowing is that you are required to tell them as per your insurance agreement. Once you go to court there is evidence that states that the incident occurred.

1990xrider said:

If their sole criteria for repairing it is depth...

They gave me the measurements of the pothole when they inspected it in may. I have asked for the measurements when inspected in August. If there is a large discrepancy between the two I will argue it is improbable for a pothole to have increased by a significant size within three months etc. I will also argue the council had ample , a reasonable amount of time within the 18 months leading up to my accident to repair. 

Potholes can increase significantly in depth, width and breadth very quickly, or very slowly, it depends on a range of factors, the very wet July being one that has made many worse.

1990xrider said:

The council's own criteria determined road users had a 61-80% chance of hitting the hole, more or less exonerating the driver from fault . Being filled with water would have also disguised the potholes true depth. The pothole was measured as a metre in width. The road is 3.4m in width. This means when you take the pothole from the equation the road was only 2.4m which is well below the 3.5m minimum width threshold outlined by the government in respect of country roads 

If you think that exonerates the driver then you have a flawed understanding of the law. 

1990xrider said:

I have other road users who have experienced damage one just a few weeks ago and they will be making witness statements when the court asks if it gets that far. 

That is not relevant to liability, which is strictly defined.

1990xrider said:

Ultimately the council deemed it to not be dangerous and believed the pothole would only cause a jarring to passengers. So their own assessment was flawed as video evidence shows the impact on the car and I have the quotes for repairs (they haven't accused me of fabricating anything either). In an ideal world I would have gone back after taking the first pictures and drained the hole and measured but am away and the council fixed it just yesterday . I wonder if they are monitoring these sorts of forums. A person who had their car damaged by the hole did manage to measure it (no pictures) and measured it as 280mm, a very stark contrast to the 70mm the council measured.   

They do not monitor these kind of forums, they will almost certainly have a published maintenance schedule and an FOI would show when the repair was scheduled and then actioned. The repair could have been scheduled, it may have been actioned because an accelerated deterioration was noted etc. 

1990xrider said:

I will give them ten working dags from the date the email was sent, then I will send them a letter (and email) informing them they will be facing claim action

You need to make sure you actually have a case first and from what you have posted I am not sure you actually do. Now do not get me wrong, I know it is annoying, in March I had a tyre ripped off a wheel in a pot hole that was totally filled with was filled with water during heavy rain, I was only doing 16 MPH at the time according to my dashcam so it was not as if I was driving recklessly, but after going through it I did not have a valid claim due. So after having that happen, having to change a wheel at one in the morning in torrential rain and then get a new tyre I was not best pleased, but spending more time getting angry over it and ultimately getting nowhere was not going to benefit me. 

The road was repaired just a couple of days after someone else I spoke to reported it. A local councillor was also aware of the situation. So it is possible the council pre empted what I would do. 

Here are the summary of the facts as I have so far ascertained. I wasn't sure I had a case to start with even though common sense said other wise but after a few weeks of intensive investigation and research I believe I have crossed the threshold to prove the pothole was dangerous and the LA failed to maintain the road

ECC were aware of the pothole in October 2021 and did not act in those 18 months to take action to rectify the defect, despite there being the opportunity to do so 

ECC's assessment of the pothole in the post-accident inspection was incorrect, given that the "Consequence" Score of 1 assigned to the hole after my accident did not correspond to the damage and impact suffered by the car, which is available to see on video.

ECC removed evidence from the public domain which showed the pothole dates back to October 2021. GSV imagery shows the gradual degeneration of the road, with the most recent imagery from 2018 showing the first formed pothole. The evidence still exists through a screenshot, of which metadata will confirm the date the screenshot was taken 

ECC deemed the pothole eligible for urgent repair in August 2023, but not between then and October 2021. 

The most recent scheduled road inspection in November Was carried out over a month later than it was supposed to be, and on both occasions "no actionable defects" were found despite ECC having knowledge of the defect, and it would have also been visible to the public eye. 

Other road users have suffered accidents owing to this pothole; approximately 14 days before this claim was sent , after ECC deemed it to be non dangerous in their assessment following my accident. Another took place around the time of the November 2022 inspection, further suggesting that ECC failed to recognise the danger or the pothole as part of their duties to maintain the road 

To clarify, the repair they just performed was not a scheduled one. It was an urgent repair carried out in a couple of days which should have been done after my claim according to their own criteria. Now yes potholes can deteriorate you are absolutely right. Which is why it is wrong for ECC not to have repaired the road during those 18 months when they could have expected for it to deteriorate. Potholes can deteriorate in a shorter amount of time but usually in winter/spring when things get colder. 

1990xrider

Car_54 said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

Insurance companies class claims as fault or non-fault: black or white, no grey area. Any claim where they are unable to recover their costs is "at fault".

You need to read your policy docs. You are almost certainly obliged do inform them.

Nothing I can see in my insurance policy doc  relating to potholes . 

I'm not claiming on the insurance so why would I tell them in the same way some people who have minor accidents where they are "at fault" agree with the other party to settle the repair themselves 

MattMattMattUK

1990xrider said:

Car_54 said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

Insurance companies class claims as fault or non-fault: black or white, no grey area. Any claim where they are unable to recover their costs is "at fault".

You need to read your policy docs. You are almost certainly obliged do inform them.

Nothing I can see in my insurance policy doc  relating to potholes . 

It will not specifically mention potholes, it will state that you must inform them of all accidents, hitting a pothole is an accident. 

1990xrider said:

I'm not claiming on the insurance so why would I tell them in the same way some people who have minor accidents where they are "at fault" agree with the other party to settle the repair themselves 

They do, but they should still inform the insurer of the accident, as required by their policy. Now of course it happens, but then most people do not generally go to court and state on public record that they have had an accident but did not report it to their insurer...

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

You hit a stationary object/obstruction. The point of the insurance company knowing is that you are required to tell them as per your insurance agreement. Once you go to court there is evidence that states that the incident occurred.

1990xrider said:

If their sole criteria for repairing it is depth...

They gave me the measurements of the pothole when they inspected it in may. I have asked for the measurements when inspected in August. If there is a large discrepancy between the two I will argue it is improbable for a pothole to have increased by a significant size within three months etc. I will also argue the council had ample , a reasonable amount of time within the 18 months leading up to my accident to repair. 

Potholes can increase significantly in depth, width and breadth very quickly, or very slowly, it depends on a range of factors, the very wet July being one that has made many worse.

1990xrider said:

The council's own criteria determined road users had a 61-80% chance of hitting the hole, more or less exonerating the driver from fault . Being filled with water would have also disguised the potholes true depth. The pothole was measured as a metre in width. The road is 3.4m in width. This means when you take the pothole from the equation the road was only 2.4m which is well below the 3.5m minimum width threshold outlined by the government in respect of country roads 

If you think that exonerates the driver then you have a flawed understanding of the law. 

1990xrider said:

I have other road users who have experienced damage one just a few weeks ago and they will be making witness statements when the court asks if it gets that far. 

That is not relevant to liability, which is strictly defined.

1990xrider said:

Ultimately the council deemed it to not be dangerous and believed the pothole would only cause a jarring to passengers. So their own assessment was flawed as video evidence shows the impact on the car and I have the quotes for repairs (they haven't accused me of fabricating anything either). In an ideal world I would have gone back after taking the first pictures and drained the hole and measured but am away and the council fixed it just yesterday . I wonder if they are monitoring these sorts of forums. A person who had their car damaged by the hole did manage to measure it (no pictures) and measured it as 280mm, a very stark contrast to the 70mm the council measured.   

They do not monitor these kind of forums, they will almost certainly have a published maintenance schedule and an FOI would show when the repair was scheduled and then actioned. The repair could have been scheduled, it may have been actioned because an accelerated deterioration was noted etc. 

1990xrider said:

I will give them ten working dags from the date the email was sent, then I will send them a letter (and email) informing them they will be facing claim action

You need to make sure you actually have a case first and from what you have posted I am not sure you actually do. Now do not get me wrong, I know it is annoying, in March I had a tyre ripped off a wheel in a pot hole that was totally filled with was filled with water during heavy rain, I was only doing 16 MPH at the time according to my dashcam so it was not as if I was driving recklessly, but after going through it I did not have a valid claim due. So after having that happen, having to change a wheel at one in the morning in torrential rain and then get a new tyre I was not best pleased, but spending more time getting angry over it and ultimately getting nowhere was not going to benefit me. 

The road was repaired just a couple of days after someone else I spoke to reported it. A local councillor was also aware of the situation. So it is possible the council pre empted what I would do. 

Here are the summary of the facts as I have so far ascertained. I wasn't sure I had a case to start with even though common sense said other wise but after a few weeks of intensive investigation and research I believe I have crossed the threshold to prove the pothole was dangerous and the LA failed to maintain the road

ECC were aware of the pothole in October 2021 and did not act in those 18 months to take action to rectify the defect, despite there being the opportunity to do so 

ECC's assessment of the pothole in the post-accident inspection was incorrect, given that the "Consequence" Score of 1 assigned to the hole after my accident did not correspond to the damage and impact suffered by the car, which is available to see on video.

ECC removed evidence from the public domain which showed the pothole dates back to October 2021. GSV imagery shows the gradual degeneration of the road, with the most recent imagery from 2018 showing the first formed pothole. The evidence still exists through a screenshot, of which metadata will confirm the date the screenshot was taken 

ECC deemed the pothole eligible for urgent repair in August 2023, but not between then and October 2021. 

The most recent scheduled road inspection in November Was carried out over a month later than it was supposed to be, and on both occasions "no actionable defects" were found despite ECC having knowledge of the defect, and it would have also been visible to the public eye. 

Other road users have suffered accidents owing to this pothole; approximately 14 days before this claim was sent , after ECC deemed it to be non dangerous in their assessment following my accident. Another took place around the time of the November 2022 inspection, further suggesting that ECC failed to recognise the danger or the pothole as part of their duties to maintain the road 

To clarify, the repair they just performed was not a scheduled one. It was an urgent repair carried out in a couple of days which should have been done after my claim according to their own criteria. Now yes potholes can deteriorate you are absolutely right. Which is why it is wrong for ECC not to have repaired the road during those 18 months when they could have expected for it to deteriorate. Potholes can deteriorate in a shorter amount of time but usually in winter/spring when things get colder. 

I am still not sure that actually constitutes a valid legal argument and the reality is that I could certainly not be bothered with the hassle of going to court for a few hundred pounds, especially with what I would view as a low probability of success. I would also be worried about it being allocated to Fast Track not Small Claims Track (councils generally push for Fast Track). I can see that you are going to pursue this via the courts regardless though, so it would be interesting to read the court's judgement either way once the case has been heard, if you would be happy to share the judgement after it is issued? 

Car_54

1990xrider said:

Car_54 said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

Insurance companies class claims as fault or non-fault: black or white, no grey area. Any claim where they are unable to recover their costs is "at fault".

You need to read your policy docs. You are almost certainly obliged do inform them.

Nothing I can see in my insurance policy doc  relating to potholes . 

I'm not claiming on the insurance so why would I tell them in the same way some people who have minor accidents where they are "at fault" agree with the other party to settle the repair themselves 

It may not mention potholes, but I'm sure it mentions accidents, which this was.

The people you mention are also obliged to tell their insurers: if they don't, they're committing fraud.

1990xrider

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

Car_54 said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

Insurance companies class claims as fault or non-fault: black or white, no grey area. Any claim where they are unable to recover their costs is "at fault".

You need to read your policy docs. You are almost certainly obliged do inform them.

Nothing I can see in my insurance policy doc  relating to potholes . 

It will not specifically mention potholes, it will state that you must inform them of all accidents, hitting a pothole is an accident. 

1990xrider said:

I'm not claiming on the insurance so why would I tell them in the same way some people who have minor accidents where they are "at fault" agree with the other party to settle the repair themselves 

They do, but they should still inform the insurer of the accident, as required by their policy. Now of course it happens, but then most people do not generally go to court and state on public record that they have had an accident but did not report it to their insurer...

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

MattMattMattUK said:

1990xrider said:

I am clearly right as the council have repaired the hole just yesterday which I find highly interesting. 

Just to be clear, them repairing a pothole does not mean that they were required to repair it earlier, neither does it make them liable for damage that occurred before it was repaired. 

Also somewhat of a warning, hitting a pothole can be deemed an at fault accident for insurance purposes, if you go to court you will be required to inform your insurance company. 

How is it "at fault"? Would I really ? What would be the point of theninsurance company knowing? 

You hit a stationary object/obstruction. The point of the insurance company knowing is that you are required to tell them as per your insurance agreement. Once you go to court there is evidence that states that the incident occurred.

1990xrider said:

If their sole criteria for repairing it is depth...

They gave me the measurements of the pothole when they inspected it in may. I have asked for the measurements when inspected in August. If there is a large discrepancy between the two I will argue it is improbable for a pothole to have increased by a significant size within three months etc. I will also argue the council had ample , a reasonable amount of time within the 18 months leading up to my accident to repair. 

Potholes can increase significantly in depth, width and breadth very quickly, or very slowly, it depends on a range of factors, the very wet July being one that has made many worse.

1990xrider said:

The council's own criteria determined road users had a 61-80% chance of hitting the hole, more or less exonerating the driver from fault . Being filled with water would have also disguised the potholes true depth. The pothole was measured as a metre in width. The road is 3.4m in width. This means when you take the pothole from the equation the road was only 2.4m which is well below the 3.5m minimum width threshold outlined by the government in respect of country roads 

If you think that exonerates the driver then you have a flawed understanding of the law. 

1990xrider said:

I have other road users who have experienced damage one just a few weeks ago and they will be making witness statements when the court asks if it gets that far. 

That is not relevant to liability, which is strictly defined.

1990xrider said:

Ultimately the council deemed it to not be dangerous and believed the pothole would only cause a jarring to passengers. So their own assessment was flawed as video evidence shows the impact on the car and I have the quotes for repairs (they haven't accused me of fabricating anything either). In an ideal world I would have gone back after taking the first pictures and drained the hole and measured but am away and the council fixed it just yesterday . I wonder if they are monitoring these sorts of forums. A person who had their car damaged by the hole did manage to measure it (no pictures) and measured it as 280mm, a very stark contrast to the 70mm the council measured.   

They do not monitor these kind of forums, they will almost certainly have a published maintenance schedule and an FOI would show when the repair was scheduled and then actioned. The repair could have been scheduled, it may have been actioned because an accelerated deterioration was noted etc. 

1990xrider said:

I will give them ten working dags from the date the email was sent, then I will send them a letter (and email) informing them they will be facing claim action

You need to make sure you actually have a case first and from what you have posted I am not sure you actually do. Now do not get me wrong, I know it is annoying, in March I had a tyre ripped off a wheel in a pot hole that was totally filled with was filled with water during heavy rain, I was only doing 16 MPH at the time according to my dashcam so it was not as if I was driving recklessly, but after going through it I did not have a valid claim due. So after having that happen, having to change a wheel at one in the morning in torrential rain and then get a new tyre I was not best pleased, but spending more time getting angry over it and ultimately getting nowhere was not going to benefit me. 

The road was repaired just a couple of days after someone else I spoke to reported it. A local councillor was also aware of the situation. So it is possible the council pre empted what I would do. 

Here are the summary of the facts as I have so far ascertained. I wasn't sure I had a case to start with even though common sense said other wise but after a few weeks of intensive investigation and research I believe I have crossed the threshold to prove the pothole was dangerous and the LA failed to maintain the road

ECC were aware of the pothole in October 2021 and did not act in those 18 months to take action to rectify the defect, despite there being the opportunity to do so 

ECC's assessment of the pothole in the post-accident inspection was incorrect, given that the "Consequence" Score of 1 assigned to the hole after my accident did not correspond to the damage and impact suffered by the car, which is available to see on video.

ECC removed evidence from the public domain which showed the pothole dates back to October 2021. GSV imagery shows the gradual degeneration of the road, with the most recent imagery from 2018 showing the first formed pothole. The evidence still exists through a screenshot, of which metadata will confirm the date the screenshot was taken 

ECC deemed the pothole eligible for urgent repair in August 2023, but not between then and October 2021. 

The most recent scheduled road inspection in November Was carried out over a month later than it was supposed to be, and on both occasions "no actionable defects" were found despite ECC having knowledge of the defect, and it would have also been visible to the public eye. 

Other road users have suffered accidents owing to this pothole; approximately 14 days before this claim was sent , after ECC deemed it to be non dangerous in their assessment following my accident. Another took place around the time of the November 2022 inspection, further suggesting that ECC failed to recognise the danger or the pothole as part of their duties to maintain the road 

To clarify, the repair they just performed was not a scheduled one. It was an urgent repair carried out in a couple of days which should have been done after my claim according to their own criteria. Now yes potholes can deteriorate you are absolutely right. Which is why it is wrong for ECC not to have repaired the road during those 18 months when they could have expected for it to deteriorate. Potholes can deteriorate in a shorter amount of time but usually in winter/spring when things get colder. 

I am still not sure that actually constitutes a valid legal argument and the reality is that I could certainly not be bothered with the hassle of going to court for a few hundred pounds, especially with what I would view as a low probability of success. I would also be worried about it being allocated to Fast Track not Small Claims Track (councils generally push for Fast Track). I can see that you are going to pursue this via the courts regardless though, so it would be interesting to read the court's judgement either way once the case has been heard, if you would be happy to share the judgement after it is issued? 

I will be happy to do. It might seem like a relatively small amount but it's also the principle. The roads in Essex are in a terrible state and as my research has concluded many others experienced issues especially around the time of the last routine inspection in November 2022, with a firefighter reporting cars have had to have been towed out of the hole. 

I will set up a gofund me to fund any potential legal fees but I believe the council may concede they must reimburse me without admitting liability based on someone with similar experience, and call the money a "goodwill gesture". Also I'm a student and not in full time work so I believe I'll probably get some leeway with any fees though do have savings 

I did not view the incident as an accident so was unaware I would need to contact my insurance, is it worth doing as it's months after it happened would it impact my Ncd even if I'm not making a claim etc.

The fact the council attempted to manipulate and destroy  online evidence of the pothole dating back to 2021 (and did destroy it by removing it from the public domain) is very dubious and the timing of it after my claim was rejected is again suspect. I appreciate this is circumstantial (though I do have evidence of the existence of the image) I believe a judge witnessing the video of the collision and reviewing ECC's own criteria will find their own grading was incorrect not to mention they had the opportunity to repair the pothole , it wasn't like they knew about it for just a week . I've looked at s58 and can deconstruct most of their arguments 

I'm half bluffing because I don't have the picture of the full depth of the pothole and have requested information on how they measured the pothole and pictures of it (they've only given me measurements), because based on the measurement they have given, and the one a witness has given, there is a huge difference (70mm from the council Vs 280mm from the witness).  Assuming the law of averages I'd settle for somewhere in the middle and take into consideration the fact my car has a ground clearance of 150mm and conclude that the council underestimated the pothole and did not measure it etc etc. 

The success rate for pothole claims is extremely low and I suspect most don't even take it as far as I've done it 

1990xrider

How is it fraud when I am not attempting to claim anything from the insurance company? Same with the others. 

So what do I do then as surely telling them months after the event would look odd and potentially bad 

I've never had any intention of claiming from insurance so never thought I'd tell them 

If people told their insurers every time they went over a pothole their phones would never stop ringing. Based on what you're saying just going over a pothole and not sustaining damage would be a collision. 

1990xrider

Also why would it be fast or multi track rather than just small claims as it's only £366?