Help with a pothole claim....
Discussion
Some councils will just fess up and pay out with not much more than a letter. Some however will contest it, and then it's unlikely to be worth bothering. It sounds like this one could be the latter. If they contest it, you'll need to go to small claims with all the evidence in your favour. As the council hold the key evidence (all you have is a picture of a hole and a picture of some damage) which is inspection schedule and records, aswell as things that prove whether they knew about it or not, you'll need to do a freedom of information request. Unless you can pull all that information together, and on your own you can decipher it to highlight the parts that prove you are right, and if your damage is less than say £400, then you might consider just f
king it off completely. You may also require letters from local residents, a statement from your pub landlord guy.
The road i had pothole damage on was subsiding, but the council proved that the inspection regime had been adhered to. I would have needed to change tack and argue that the inspection regime was inappropriate for that type of road and that would have required a solicitor etc. The damage was £1000 and it was just all too much to do.
I have since taken 2 unrelated small claims cases to court and won, so maybe if the pothole hadn't come first I'd have had more confidence to proceed with it, but many would not have.
king it off completely. You may also require letters from local residents, a statement from your pub landlord guy. The road i had pothole damage on was subsiding, but the council proved that the inspection regime had been adhered to. I would have needed to change tack and argue that the inspection regime was inappropriate for that type of road and that would have required a solicitor etc. The damage was £1000 and it was just all too much to do.
I have since taken 2 unrelated small claims cases to court and won, so maybe if the pothole hadn't come first I'd have had more confidence to proceed with it, but many would not have.
Thanks for the pointers guys, the VW garage (although they couldn't fully assess it) have said it'll total well over £1k to fix, making it an insurance job really 
Currently borrowing a car (Croyde, the timing was rather good!) but need hers fixed ASAP but don't want to claim on insurance whilst it's a cost we can't afford to shell out for now with no certainty of recovery. Is it something an accident management co. would take up on our behalf? Have tried calling the insurance co. to see if there is legal cover but unfortunately not.
With CFA only 2 weeks away I could do without this additional hassle!
Currently borrowing a car (Croyde, the timing was rather good!) but need hers fixed ASAP but don't want to claim on insurance whilst it's a cost we can't afford to shell out for now with no certainty of recovery. Is it something an accident management co. would take up on our behalf? Have tried calling the insurance co. to see if there is legal cover but unfortunately not.
With CFA only 2 weeks away I could do without this additional hassle!
They need the car in to give the full breakdown however the things broken obviously are:
Alloy front (not checked the rear for buckling yet but this went through it and all)
Tyre front (or pair if they can't match)
Suspension &/or tracking - pulls to the left, have to have about 20* of right lock to keep it straight, wonders around the road
Steering column squeaking
Grinding noise & vibration when driving along
The £1k+ was just the word of the service guy.
It can't be driven ATM either due to the above, with my car off the road too we are lucky she can use her mum's for the week but don't know beyond that and don't wan to go adding uncovered hire cars hence the AMC with the added benefit that they'll sort the council out too.
From checking the legislation the road should be inspected every 1 or 3 months depending on what type of secondary link road it is, and based on the severity and risk of the hole, combined with the above, be repaired within 5 days, but is subject to their judgement.
Fix my street said 'numerous potholes around the corner' on 29 July, 4 months ago and there was a specific report of this hole on 10 November with confirmation that they were notified then. I'm thinking that they have a distinct liability here too...
Think I'm going to call them on Monday morning with this and see what they say, hopefully they'll then give an indemnity to cover the costs at VW directly....
Alloy front (not checked the rear for buckling yet but this went through it and all)
Tyre front (or pair if they can't match)
Suspension &/or tracking - pulls to the left, have to have about 20* of right lock to keep it straight, wonders around the road
Steering column squeaking
Grinding noise & vibration when driving along
The £1k+ was just the word of the service guy.
It can't be driven ATM either due to the above, with my car off the road too we are lucky she can use her mum's for the week but don't know beyond that and don't wan to go adding uncovered hire cars hence the AMC with the added benefit that they'll sort the council out too.
From checking the legislation the road should be inspected every 1 or 3 months depending on what type of secondary link road it is, and based on the severity and risk of the hole, combined with the above, be repaired within 5 days, but is subject to their judgement.
Fix my street said 'numerous potholes around the corner' on 29 July, 4 months ago and there was a specific report of this hole on 10 November with confirmation that they were notified then. I'm thinking that they have a distinct liability here too...
Think I'm going to call them on Monday morning with this and see what they say, hopefully they'll then give an indemnity to cover the costs at VW directly....
Good advice from the Kungfupanda there. A couple of other pointers-
1. I have had a couple of claims over the last 15 or so years, the second is current. In both cases they rely upon the defence already mentioned. However in the current one in Essex, which they are currently disputing, they disclosed 18 (that is not a misprint!) reports of the pothole in the 8 months before the incident! So definitely get the record from them - the fix my pothole records are also helpful but will only be a fraction.
2. In terms of the defence, there was a case Goodes v Sussex County Council in 1998 or 1999. The case is not entirely relevant (it was about the duty to have a programme of ice/snow removal from memory). But if you can find the court of appeal decision then there is something said by one of the appeal court judges, which said (to paraphrase) yes, there is a defence available that an adequate system of inspection was in place, but if the road was such to cause damage then it is difficult to see how the system of inspection was adequate.
That was enough to persuade the council on my first claim to cough up for the physical damage in full. By then I was young and cross with them messing me about and declining liability in the first instance so I did the small claims thing and got something more for other losses (just a nominal amount, you are best of getting this sorted quickly if you can).
That is an enormous crater and if anyone seriously thinks that the OP is somehow responsible for his own problems by having large wheels may they be consigned to a motoring lifetime of 80 profile tyres....
Good luck with it.
1. I have had a couple of claims over the last 15 or so years, the second is current. In both cases they rely upon the defence already mentioned. However in the current one in Essex, which they are currently disputing, they disclosed 18 (that is not a misprint!) reports of the pothole in the 8 months before the incident! So definitely get the record from them - the fix my pothole records are also helpful but will only be a fraction.
2. In terms of the defence, there was a case Goodes v Sussex County Council in 1998 or 1999. The case is not entirely relevant (it was about the duty to have a programme of ice/snow removal from memory). But if you can find the court of appeal decision then there is something said by one of the appeal court judges, which said (to paraphrase) yes, there is a defence available that an adequate system of inspection was in place, but if the road was such to cause damage then it is difficult to see how the system of inspection was adequate.
That was enough to persuade the council on my first claim to cough up for the physical damage in full. By then I was young and cross with them messing me about and declining liability in the first instance so I did the small claims thing and got something more for other losses (just a nominal amount, you are best of getting this sorted quickly if you can).
That is an enormous crater and if anyone seriously thinks that the OP is somehow responsible for his own problems by having large wheels may they be consigned to a motoring lifetime of 80 profile tyres....
Good luck with it.
0a said:
I have little sympathy with this kind of claim when the car is wearing wheels sized for fashion rather than driving. If you must have big VAG alloys slow down or don't drive roads away from A roads.
Find that very harsh. I think he including us have a right to have roads without potholes on our roads. He has what I think is OEM alloys from the factory - you are talking as if he has 22" aftermarket alloys and even if he did that is his choice. Edited by 0a on Saturday 22 November 01:13
He doesn't go around saying look at that bell end in his 14" crap wheels (I hope not).
We all have a right to drive what we like as long as it is safe and road worthy regardless of personal taste - the roads should be fit for all cars especially if they come from the bloody factory with such options.
Blown2CV said:
Some councils will just fess up and pay out with not much more than a letter. Some however will contest it, and then it's unlikely to be worth bothering. It sounds like this one could be the latter. If they contest it, you'll need to go to small claims with all the evidence in your favour. As the council hold the key evidence (all you have is a picture of a hole and a picture of some damage) which is inspection schedule and records, aswell as things that prove whether they knew about it or not, you'll need to do a freedom of information request. Unless you can pull all that information together, and on your own you can decipher it to highlight the parts that prove you are right, and if your damage is less than say £400, then you might consider just fking it off completely. You may also require letters from local residents, a statement from your pub landlord guy.
The road i had pothole damage on was subsiding, but the council proved that the inspection regime had been adhered to. I would have needed to change tack and argue that the inspection regime was inappropriate for that type of road and that would have required a solicitor etc. The damage was £1000 and it was just all too much to do.
I have since taken 2 unrelated small claims cases to court and won, so maybe if the pothole hadn't come first I'd have had more confidence to proceed with it, but many would not have.
I have always been interested in finding out if anyone has challanged if the "inspection regime" is an acceptable one. king it off completely. You may also require letters from local residents, a statement from your pub landlord guy. The road i had pothole damage on was subsiding, but the council proved that the inspection regime had been adhered to. I would have needed to change tack and argue that the inspection regime was inappropriate for that type of road and that would have required a solicitor etc. The damage was £1000 and it was just all too much to do.
I have since taken 2 unrelated small claims cases to court and won, so maybe if the pothole hadn't come first I'd have had more confidence to proceed with it, but many would not have.
Lets be honest the size of that bloody pothole in the OP is not exactly something that happens over night or over a month. I see potholes develop all the time with errosion from heavy use. They take almost a year to have them fixed and thats on a motorway which should be checked very regularly.
IATM said:
Blown2CV said:
Some councils will just fess up and pay out with not much more than a letter. Some however will contest it, and then it's unlikely to be worth bothering. It sounds like this one could be the latter. If they contest it, you'll need to go to small claims with all the evidence in your favour. As the council hold the key evidence (all you have is a picture of a hole and a picture of some damage) which is inspection schedule and records, aswell as things that prove whether they knew about it or not, you'll need to do a freedom of information request. Unless you can pull all that information together, and on your own you can decipher it to highlight the parts that prove you are right, and if your damage is less than say £400, then you might consider just fking it off completely. You may also require letters from local residents, a statement from your pub landlord guy.
The road i had pothole damage on was subsiding, but the council proved that the inspection regime had been adhered to. I would have needed to change tack and argue that the inspection regime was inappropriate for that type of road and that would have required a solicitor etc. The damage was £1000 and it was just all too much to do.
I have since taken 2 unrelated small claims cases to court and won, so maybe if the pothole hadn't come first I'd have had more confidence to proceed with it, but many would not have.
I have always been interested in finding out if anyone has challanged if the "inspection regime" is an acceptable one. king it off completely. You may also require letters from local residents, a statement from your pub landlord guy. The road i had pothole damage on was subsiding, but the council proved that the inspection regime had been adhered to. I would have needed to change tack and argue that the inspection regime was inappropriate for that type of road and that would have required a solicitor etc. The damage was £1000 and it was just all too much to do.
I have since taken 2 unrelated small claims cases to court and won, so maybe if the pothole hadn't come first I'd have had more confidence to proceed with it, but many would not have.
Lets be honest the size of that bloody pothole in the OP is not exactly something that happens over night or over a month. I see potholes develop all the time with errosion from heavy use. They take almost a year to have them fixed and thats on a motorway which should be checked very regularly.
i'd love to know if anyone has successfully challenged the inspection regime. I think it's probably worth getting a specialist solicitor for that though really.
Surrey CC rejected my claim after a huge water filled hole damaged the sill and undertray. Like the OP, unlit and with a deep & steep drop off.
Amusingly they denied there was a problem, saying any potholes had been fixed, and sent me their report & repair log to confirm this. The log contained the reports of potholes in that exact area, but with the repair log saying 'loose surface accumulations removed' from about 1 month before...
Google streetmap from 2012 had pictures of the exact pothole when it was just 6 inches deep and 18 inches long.
So when I pointed out to them the lack of repairs, and that unless the pothole was a new doctor who character it had been their for over 2 years through their own inspections.
Cheque sent 3 days later.
Amusingly they denied there was a problem, saying any potholes had been fixed, and sent me their report & repair log to confirm this. The log contained the reports of potholes in that exact area, but with the repair log saying 'loose surface accumulations removed' from about 1 month before...
Google streetmap from 2012 had pictures of the exact pothole when it was just 6 inches deep and 18 inches long.
So when I pointed out to them the lack of repairs, and that unless the pothole was a new doctor who character it had been their for over 2 years through their own inspections.
Cheque sent 3 days later.
Blown2CV said:
MrBarry123 said:
Blown2CV said:
yes but you need to prove that
Raise a FOI request on the council on complaints regarding pothole damage on that particular road?The splosh of red paint under the OPs foot in the lunar picture suggests that it has been highlighted at some point but that highlight has since worn off?
Can't be too crazy an assumption to make that the council have been made aware of it - of course, that could just be completely coincidental red paint, so it could be nothing.
Can't be too crazy an assumption to make that the council have been made aware of it - of course, that could just be completely coincidental red paint, so it could be nothing.
This happened to me a lot of years ago. I put a claim in and it got rejected due to them having a procedure in place of checking the road every so many years. Luckily I worked for the council and could look through the inspection reports as proof, unluckily they had checked it so I had to pay up.
It has been said further up but if they throw out the claim definatly go for the FOI route.
With regard to the paint, im not sure if all councils do but we used white or yellow paint (Durham) as do our neighbouring councils. Red is used for emergency services I think (Im willing to be corrected on this as im sceptical).
It has been said further up but if they throw out the claim definatly go for the FOI route.
With regard to the paint, im not sure if all councils do but we used white or yellow paint (Durham) as do our neighbouring councils. Red is used for emergency services I think (Im willing to be corrected on this as im sceptical).
pringle1988 said:
This happened to me a lot of years ago. I put a claim in and it got rejected due to them having a procedure in place of checking the road every so many years. Luckily I worked for the council and could look through the inspection reports as proof, unluckily they had checked it so I had to pay up.
It has been said further up but if they throw out the claim definatly go for the FOI route.
With regard to the paint, im not sure if all councils do but we used white or yellow paint (Durham) as do our neighbouring councils. Red is used for emergency services I think (Im willing to be corrected on this as im sceptical).
This article a few months ago explains why different colours are used. Perhaps not exhaustive but it's a start:It has been said further up but if they throw out the claim definatly go for the FOI route.
With regard to the paint, im not sure if all councils do but we used white or yellow paint (Durham) as do our neighbouring councils. Red is used for emergency services I think (Im willing to be corrected on this as im sceptical).
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25915468
I put in a claim to Lewisham Council a few years back for a cracked 18" alloy on the E85 Z4 which was caused by a sunken manhole cover. (£300 replacement wheel cost from BMW)
Took 3 months to get a reply and received a huge wad of Council inspection reports for that part of the road dating back 8 months with 'satisfactory' status.
When queried they recommended getting in contact with Thames Water who were apparently responsible for the manhole cover.
At which point I gave up.
Good luck.
s
Took 3 months to get a reply and received a huge wad of Council inspection reports for that part of the road dating back 8 months with 'satisfactory' status.
When queried they recommended getting in contact with Thames Water who were apparently responsible for the manhole cover.
At which point I gave up.
Good luck.
s
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff