Actions before small claims court with council

1990xrider

Hi just a question

So I've not had this letter, the last update i had was the council sending their filled out N180 to me via their solicitors via email.

Should i chase it up?
I don't want to find out its something i've got to respond to within a certain time period, and they've either sent it and it hasn't arrived, or they've deliberately not sent it. 

1990xrider

Ok so update, the other day I got the n271 transfer to my local court. Guess now its just a case of awaiting the judge to confirm directions?

rigolith

Thanks for the update. You are right, just wait.

1990xrider

rigolith said:

Thanks for the update. You are right, just wait.

It’s interesting how the council and their legal team never sent the change to the application ti me though, meaning I am no longer getting any updates about the case on the HMCTS website 

1990xrider

Got a letter today from the local court saying the CCBC haven't sent my N180 and Particulars and are requesting copies within 7 days! Do they accept emailed or print? There is an email address i have sent them to but they say they will respond within 26(!) working days. Been on the phone waiting to get through for the past half hour

Okell

tedted said:

i watched your video and there is no way the o/s would have sustained that amount of damage to need replacing

I'm just catching up with this thread.  (And I've read through to now - ie 00:44 hours 15 November 2023)

I note that there have been several questions directed to the OP about n/s and o/s and I wonder if there may have been some confusion...

In a conversation with my wife (who is left-handed and has absolutely no idea what "left" and "right" mean) a few months ago I realised that she understood "near-side" to mean the right-hand (or off-side!) of the car because it was the nearest side to her, the driver - and not a reference to the left-hand side nearest the footpath.

I wonder if there has been similar confusion throughout this thread on the part of the OP...(?)

PS - no criticism of the OP intended - they just seem not to know what o/s and n/s mean  -  just like Mrs. Okell  

Okell

@1990xrider -  as I said in my previous post I'm just catching up with this thread - I hadn't contributed to it before.  And I'm not advising on the legal process or how to follow it.

Is this where the problem was - just after the junction with Kennel Lane and Hunters Avenue, travelling south-west along Kennel Lane?

5 Kennel Ln - Google Maps

I'm not giving any legal advice but if you continue with this claim and if this is the "defect" in question it does seem quite noticeable and ECC could argue that it was so noticeable that you should have noticed it.

Of course you could also argue that if it's so noticeable then Essex CC should have fixed it.  Or that you should have noticed it.

These cases are nightmares...

[Edit:  If you go back to 2009 on Google Maps Street View, it looks just as bad drainage-wise.  Whether that would help you or not I have no idea as I'm not a lawyer...]

1990xrider

Okell said:

@1990xrider -  as I said in my previous post I'm just catching up with this thread - I hadn't contributed to it before.  And I'm not advising on the legal process or how to follow it.

Is this where the problem was - just after the junction with Kennel Lane and Hunters Avenue, travelling south-west along Kennel Lane?

5 Kennel Ln - Google Maps

I'm not giving any legal advice but if you continue with this claim and if this is the "defect" in question it does seem quite noticeable and ECC could argue that it was so noticeable that you should have noticed it.

Of course you could also argue that if it's so noticeable then Essex CC should have fixed it.  Or that you should have noticed it.

These cases are nightmares...

[Edit:  If you go back to 2009 on Google Maps Street View, it looks just as bad drainage-wise.  Whether that would help you or not I have no idea as I'm not a lawyer...]

Hi - no I was travelling the other way it was here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6140666,0.4229693,3a,75.4y,27.73h,70.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE_flOXNjd519YEJgZAp7AA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu 

It was a fair bit larger at the time of the incident but still covered with water. It's there in 2016 with no water, in 2009 it's not there. 

Okell

OK.

That whole stretch of road looks rather badly maintained.  I see the white line marking the edge of the carriageway which was clearly evident in 2009 had completely disappeared by 2016 and might not have been re-done since 2009 - according to Street view.  I assume it's should be there as a warning to motorists of the edge of the carriageway and ditch(?) as it's a very narrow lane 

Whether it's of any help to you or not, I have no idea, but the condition of the road certainly seems to have deteriorated considerably since 2009...

1990xrider

Okell said:

OK.

That whole stretch of road looks rather badly maintained.  I see the white line marking the edge of the carriageway which was clearly evident in 2009 had completely disappeared by 2016 and might not have been re-done since 2009 - according to Street view.  I assume it's should be there as a warning to motorists of the edge of the carriageway and ditch(?) as it's a very narrow lane 

Whether it's of any help to you or not, I have no idea, but the condition of the road certainly seems to have deteriorated considerably since 2009...

Yes it's definitely a point I intend to make and have already done. I suspect the main defence the council will rely on is that they obliged by their legal obligations in regularly inspecting the road, meaning the defect was being monitored etc. However I will argue (and have argued) that whilst they may have regularly inspected the road, it was done so in an incompetent fashion. 

Through local enquiries, I have found other people who have had pothole damage on cars in the area. It seems like essex county council do not actually stop and measure the pothole. they simply film the defect from a moving vehicle, and if it looks "bad enough" basically, they will get out and measure it. When I spoke to a local cllr about this he was quite surprised. My main line of attack will be that they failed to identify the depth of the hole in the post accident assessment, so if they failed to do this then, then this surely raises doubts about past inspections. They measured the depth after the accident as 70mm - I measured it at around 200mm. The council had not drained the hole of water, they had simply taken a grainy still from a video camera on the van. 

I'm sure there are national guidelines on this sort of thing but I think a lot of autonomy is given to the local authority in how they determine a pothole's danger etc.

I have FOI data which shows the pothole being recorded back in 2019 where it was 140mm but wasn't recorded as a pothole so wasn't fixed. Now either that is a different pothole or they have some reason changed their mind because in 2023 they called it a pothole (but halved its depth this time, mesuring it at 70mm after my incident)

I also intend to use witness evidence and have included a photograph from a neighbour of a 4x4 stuck in the hole.