Potholes on the Motorway - claiming for damage

Trafford67

In September (13th) I hit a pothole on the inside lane of the M5 in Gloucestershire. In 40 years of driving I don't think I've known a noise like it when hitting a road "defect". I drive that stretch of motorway a couple of times a year only.
Upshot was that I badly damaged the brakes on the nearside front, I had pulled off the motorway almost straight away and had it looked at immediately. I was amazed the tyre didn't burst.
Front nearside brakes needed replacement, cost £300.
I have never claimed in my life before from a council etc, but felt this was quite a serious incident, particularly on a motorway with the speeds involved etc (I was doing 60 when I hit it), and so filled in the National Highways claim form, along with the invoice for the repair and the previous months service record showing brakes in excellent condition. 
HIghways rejected my claim, largely on the grounds that they deem 40mm to be the depth at which a pothole becomes "safety critical", and their inspections had found no such pothole prior to my incident. They also advised there had been no other reports or claims around the time of my incident.
Stupidly, I hadn't even thought to look at previous reports on their site, and when I now did, found a number of reports of a pothole in the same place going back to 13 July, all reporting a serious "defect", and most warning it needed repair otherwise it could damage a vehicles tyres/wheels. Several drivers mentioned they travelled the route often and could see it deteriorating.
I used FOI to get their inspection reports. Only their normal weekly (driven) inspection had taken place, and at the end of August a "Uneven Road Surface" sign was identified as required half a mile before the "defect". A Highways response to one of the pothole reports said they were aware of the pothole and it would be part of their patching programme "over the next couple of months" (this was in September).
After a couple of other reports after my own in mid to late September the repair was upgraded to be completed within 7 days, which it was.
I've now gone back to them with the timeline of reports and inspections etc, and await a response.I pointed out that the very presence of £300 of damage to my car shows it was safety critical, as it could easily have caused a tyre issue and sent my car across other lanes (imagine a motorcycle hitting it) 
I can see them coming back with their "safety critical" depth ruling again, and I'm aware I could go through Small Claims having exhausted their own channels, but quite frustrating that a known problem can be allowed to get quite this bad before repair on a high speed road.
I'll update with further news (sorry for the length of the post!)

Bigphil1474

You should be fine for a small claims court appearance given the records of the defect reported 2 months earlier. They can't really argue they didn't know about it.

DullGreyGuy

So they were aware of an issue but hadn't deemed it safety critical at that point, after your incident their inspections noted it had deteriorated and so it was upgraded and a fix done within the required timescales?

If thats the inspection record is saying then your prospects aren't great as they were inspecting in line with their requirements and took action when the inspections deemed it was necessary. 

Hopefully you've informed your insurers already else they may be made aware of your attempted claim and have questions as to why you've failed to inform them. 

Trafford67

DullGreyGuy said:

So they were aware of an issue but hadn't deemed it safety critical at that point, after your incident their inspections noted it had deteriorated and so it was upgraded and a fix done within the required timescales?

If thats the inspection record is saying then your prospects aren't great as they were inspecting in line with their requirements and took action when the inspections deemed it was necessary. 

Hopefully you've informed your insurers already else they may be made aware of your attempted claim and have questions as to why you've failed to inform them. 

Yes I agree it seems likely they will reject my claim again. I have visions in my mind of them measuring it and finding it is only 39mm deep think that will be fine  . They are judge and jury here, and will look to reinforce their "paying out claims reduces the amount they can spend on maintenance" line which was in their very first email - this may be true, but makes the case for improved Government funding, not avoiding payment for damaged vehicles.

My insurance company were notified the day I claimed, though I'm not sure of the relevance to the story.

uknick

How did you manage to damage only the brakes?  Wheel, tyre, suspension components I can understand.

HillStreetBlues

DullGreyGuy said:

So they were aware of an issue but hadn't deemed it safety critical at that point, after your incident their inspections noted it had deteriorated and so it was upgraded and a fix done within the required timescales?

If thats the inspection record is saying then your prospects aren't great as they were inspecting in line with their requirements and took action when the inspections deemed it was necessary. 

Hopefully you've informed your insurers already else they may be made aware of your attempted claim and have questions as to why you've failed to inform them. 

Maybe I'm not understanding this.
Inspecting reported it didn't need fixing,  then  someone claimed and was reinspected and was then found to need a repair.
So unless amazing coincidence, the repair would have been needed at some point between the two inspections.
As that would mean an inspector could note down  repair in two months, and then wouldn't matter what size the pothole grew to in those two months.

DullGreyGuy

Trafford67 said:
They are judge and jury here, and will look to reinforce their "paying out claims reduces the amount they can spend on maintenance" line which was in their very first email - this may be true, but makes the case for improved Government funding, not avoiding payment for damaged vehicles.

My insurance company were notified the day I claimed, though I'm not sure of the relevance to the story.

No, they are the defendant, you'd need to go to court to get a judge (but still no jury as its a civil case).

The relevance is that many people "forget" to tell their insurers as they don't intend to claim on their insurance. They then get in a sticky place when their insurer does basic checks and finds an undisclosed claim. 

HillStreetBlues said:

DullGreyGuy said:

So they were aware of an issue but hadn't deemed it safety critical at that point, after your incident their inspections noted it had deteriorated and so it was upgraded and a fix done within the required timescales?

If thats the inspection record is saying then your prospects aren't great as they were inspecting in line with their requirements and took action when the inspections deemed it was necessary. 

Hopefully you've informed your insurers already else they may be made aware of your attempted claim and have questions as to why you've failed to inform them. 

Maybe I'm not understanding this.
Inspecting reported it didn't need fixing,  then  someone claimed and was reinspected and was then found to need a repair.
So unless amazing coincidence, the repair would have been needed at some point between the two inspections.
As that would mean an inspector could note down  repair in two months, and then wouldn't matter what size the pothole grew to in those two months.

Can't say that was the timeline... inspected and was acceptable, then someone sustained damage and then inspected again inline with schedule and now needs repair. There is nothing in the OP's text to say when the claim was made.

You'll find every single pothole a council finds and fixes is at some point between the last inspection and the inspection that finds it and deems it necessary to fix. The law however doesn't require a council to inspect every mm of road it owns every hour and fix any defect within 20 minutes. The law requires them to have a schedule and process in place and as long as they follow that they aren't being negligent. There is no strict liability on them for damages caused by potholes any more there is on them for mud/oil on the road, debris or anything other issues with a carriageway that can ultimately contribute to damage to road users vehicles. 

Trafford67

Hot off the presses at 4pm today, National Highways are paying the full amount of my claim.