How long do Councils have to fix a pothole?

FruitsRUs

I hit a 5 inch deep 3 foot wide pothole on 5th April that was inspected and a works order raised on 15/03 when it was reported at 50mm deep. Kier are refusing to compensate me for £203 to replace a blown tyre and tracking. Have I got any grounds for a claim because they didn’t fix it soon enough? Or, there were no signs or anything to warn of the pothole location? Thanks.

eddddy

FruitsRUs said:

I hit a 5 inch deep 3 foot wide pothole on 5th April that was inspected and a works order raised on 15/03 when it was reported at 50mm deep. Kier are refusing to compensate me for £203 to replace a blown tyre and tracking. Have I got any grounds for a claim because they didn’t fix it soon enough? Or, there were no signs or anything to warn of the pothole location? Thanks.

It's not Kier you should be contacting, it's the people responsible for the road. That's likely to be the local council or  Highways England or Traffic Scotland or Traffic Wales. See: https://www.gov.uk/claim-for-damage-to-your-vehicle


To make a successful claim, you would have to show that the organisation responsible for the road was negligent.


An example of negligence might be if somebody reported the pothole to the council a while before you hit the pothole - so the council knew about the pothole for a while before you hit it, but they didn't fix it within a reasonable time.

DullGreyGuy

eddddy said:
so the council knew about the pothole for a while before you hit it, but they didn't fix it within a reasonable time.

It's less about being a "reasonable time" but inline with their policy. Most operate a grading system and will have a different response time depending on the level of issue it represents. So a moderate pothole in the middle of the carriageway of a national speed limit dual carriageway is likely to be prioritised above the same size pothole at the edge of the verge on a small trunk road in a 20 mph zone. 

sevenhills

FruitsRUs said:

I hit a 5 inch deep 3 foot wide pothole on 5th April that was inspected and a works order raised on 15/03 when it was reported at 50mm deep. Kier are refusing to compensate me for £203 to replace a blown tyre and tracking. Have I got any grounds for a claim because they didn’t fix it soon enough? Or, there were no signs or anything to warn of the pothole location? Thanks.

5cm deep is quite shallow, speed bumps are higher. Now that you know it's there, it shouldn't be a problem.

droopsnoot

FruitsRUs said:

Or, there were no signs or anything to warn of the pothole location?

I don't think I've ever seen a sign to warn of a pothole, other than the white paint around the hole to mark where the work needs to be done. 

eddddy

DullGreyGuy said:

eddddy said:
so the council knew about the pothole for a while before you hit it, but they didn't fix it within a reasonable time.

It's less about being a "reasonable time" but inline with their policy. Most operate a grading system and will have a different response time depending on the level of issue it represents. So a moderate pothole in the middle of the carriageway of a national speed limit dual carriageway is likely to be prioritised above the same size pothole at the edge of the verge on a small trunk road in a 20 mph zone. 

A "reasonable time" is probably a better way of looking at it.

Tort Law defines negligence as failing to do what a reasonable person would do. (i.e. how quickly would a reasonable person go about fixing that specific pothole, in that specific location, on that specific road?)


As you suggest... "a reasonable time" to fix a pot hole in a quiet 20mph zone might be much longer than "a reasonable time" to fix a pothole in a major A road.

The council might have a grading system which determines how quickly a pothole is fixed - but if the result of applying the grading system means a pothole isn't fixed in a "reasonable time", the council would still be negligent.


But obviously, it would be an easy fight if the council agreed that they were negligent, but much harder if they denied negligence (e.g. They might believe they are not negligent, simply because they followed their grading system.)

DullGreyGuy

eddddy said:
The council might have a grading system which determines how quickly a pothole is fixed - but if the result of applying the grading system means a pothole isn't fixed in a "reasonable time", the council would still be negligent.

You could argue the same on the frequency of Council inspections but every website, including this one, says that if the councils inspection schedule is to only inspect trunk roads every 9 months then your only way to challenge them is if the FOI request shows that road wasnt inspected in the last 9 months rather than challenging if 9 months is a reasonable frequency. 

I dont know if there is legal basis or case law to support this but it doesn't sound unreasonable to assume similar would apply to the repair schedule which would exist in the same policy. I dont recall any cases where the insured hit a pothole and then went on to cause damage to a third party from my claims days and a standard pothole claim wouldnt have crossed my desk. 

FruitsRUs

Just to reaffirm, the pothole was 5 inches deep, ie 125mm deep.