Actions before small claims court with council

1990xrider

Melanie1972 said:

Resend the letter giving them a 7 day deadline.  Individuals need 30 days but businesses only need 7-14 days

Ok it was an email but I will send a letter after a few days. Giving them seven days or I will start action   I will send it an email as well. Good idea to have it signed as recorded delivery? 

1990xrider

So it seems like they haven't fixed the bole after all. There appears to be two new road surfaces (asphalt) near by but the actual pothole I hit is still there. Until I measure it later here is a pic I took with a nearby road cone put in it 

1990xrider

I've returned to the scene, and have drained the pothole.
I have ascertained a height of around 200mm (20cm). You can quite clearly see from the pictures of the hole once its been drained just how deep it is. I wonder if the council actually measured a different hole when i hit as there were two more holes further down the road which were repaired (just a few days ago) and they correspondw ith the location the council assigned my pothole. 

I've consulted C.A.B and they say there is a possibility the council will  assign me fast or even multi track if this is the case i will pull out which is what they said to do.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TaNUIElPWuEwpcfg1k-mpjYeJf6uKPyc?usp=sharing

1990xrider

Right another UPDATE

So I asked about why the reference from "track it" dating to october 2021 was removed., They claimed (very erroneously if i must say) that somehow whilst classed as a "carriageway defect" it was actually a "water drainage" issue. Judging by the state of the road today that issue still exists.

I can confirm that Essex County Council does hold this information, and where we

are able to release this, our response is listed below.

Track it reference 2721868 last updated 21 st October 2021 relating to a carriageway

defect/pothole - can you please inform me of the following:

Question 1 - the site history report of 2021 relating to this pothole including the

dimensions of the pothole and the associated risk assessment eg the priority score

and how this was calculated (consequence and likelihood scored etc)

Although the enquiry related to a carriageway defect the enquiry has been linked to a

standing water defect, number 3532510 which has been associated to the enquiry.

However, the enquiry should have been linked to carriageway defect 3348971.

The data shows a claim was made against ECC for a vehicle's underside being damaged on the 7th May 2021. This was some 2 years before my collision.

I'm trying to make sense of the data still but here is what htey had to say about that pothole in 2019

3348971 Ra 6=3×2 nsmm verge overrun 28/03/2019 2.0x0.9x140mm size is an estimate as unsafe to mark or measure Btwn opp fox cottage and jw hunters ave HW: verge over-run Internal No Action Required

So it was 140mm in depth 4 years ago, 200 today. Yet the council deemed it no action required and unsafe to mark or measure?

This leads us onto the next request, relating to how the pothole relating to my claim was measured.

The council said there was no information relating to how the measurement was taking and if it was measured below the water. They've sent some photos. They appear to be taken from a maintenance van. 

The council is contradicting their own data!! 

1990xrider

​So the council KNEW about the defect for over 4 years, doubling the 2021 time frame. And an accident occured in May, several months before being noted in October. 

​The issue I see is the council haven't labelled my pothole in the same place as the others but the description from 2019 and May 2021 more roughly reflects the location I hit than the more vague description given in 2023. Another FOI would confirm this or in court. The other thing I note in 2019 and 2021 they call it a "verge overrun" but in 2023 they call it a "pothole". 

Wonka_2

OK - now you've given more detail was this actually a pothole on the surfaced carriageway of the road or was it a hole/dip in the verge ? I was expecting from your claim a failure in the main carriageway but the picture seems less clear and a look a google maps makes seem like a dip in the verge ? If you're clear it's the main carriageway then it's going to need a better picture to clarify 

1990xrider

Wonka_2 said:

OK - now you've given more detail was this actually a pothole on the surfaced carriageway of the road or was it a hole/dip in the verge ? I was expecting from your claim a failure in the main carriageway but the picture seems less clear and a look a google maps makes seem like a dip in the verge ? If you're clear it's the main carriageway then it's going to need a better picture to clarify 

What is defined as a "verge"? 

The council themselves seem at a loss as what to call it. In 2019, when it was judged to be 140mm in depth it was called a "verge overrun", though despite the colossal depth, no action was allegedly required. Yet after my claim they called it a pothole and logged it as 70mm.

Does it make a difference to claim, as its still a defect? And any driver error has been exonerated by the council's own admission in my claim rejection that it was judged that drivers had a 61-80% chance of hitting it.

The council description was it being at the "edge" of the CW and I would say that is correct. So the pics should be good enough. Even if my measurement with the tape is not 100% accurate, you can clearly see the depth even in the one with the water where the cone is in it. By the looks of the reports from the council no official measurement has ever even been taken. I was sort of bluffing in my letter to them where i claimed i suspected it was deeper than it was as i had no real proof at the time other than just assuming the impact but now I can 100% confirm it is far, far deeper than 70mm. if it was assessed as being 140mm in 2019 it is quite reasonable to assume it is 200mm now a 60mm growth in 4 years thats 15mm a year. 

If you look at GSV https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1IwAvVz3swNml3gcJyoNKhlmp3LSIk_nB?usp=sharing you can see the degeneration of the road surface and see by 2018 a year before the council inspection a defect had already formed with water. back then it is very much at the edge but since then it has gradually expanded in width to enter the main carriageway making it more difficult to avoid and decieving as it has water road users might expect a puddle like myself

Ectophile

I think there comes a point where you need to stop listening to the armchair experts here and make a decision for yourself.  The people who say that you will never will will always say that you will never win, however much evidence you can find.

1990xrider

Ectophile said:

I think there comes a point where you need to stop listening to the armchair experts here and make a decision for yourself.  The people who say that you will never will will always say that you will never win, however much evidence you can find.

I am taking action. Providing they fail to respond which so far is the case. 

Will pull out of the process if it goes on fast or multi track tho probably anyway 

sheramber

We burst two tyres on a similar hole at the side of a narrow single track road. The council refused the claim on the grounds that it wasn’t carriageway so not their responsibility.