How to argue with council about a pothole...
Discussion
I submitted a claim to West Sussex County Council for a monster pothole that destroyed a not-inexpensive tyre. Here's what I had back a few months later:
I've had a read on MSE and there's a walk-through for taking things further with FOI requests for inspection info etc but the law firm seem, apparently, to be wise to this with the comments made about not reconsidering based on frequency of inspection, speed of repair etc. WSCC's legal representatives also seem to have been deliberately vague as to how soon it should have been repaired after being assessed for it and whether or not the repair was done within a reasonable time-frame (what should that be?).
In essence is it a lazy council giving me a massive 'f
k off' and trying to discourage me from trying to pursue it any further? Part of me is pissed about how bad the pothole was, coughing up for £300+ of tyre (and very lucky the rim wasn't damaged too). I also had to traipse back up to the location just to take pics (a 60+ mile round trip) as well before I was allowed to submit a claim.
Is it worth going back to them with something to push harder for reimbursement and if so, any ideas on how to achieve that? I'd be grateful for your thoughts.
WSCC's legal representative said:
I am in receipt of your completed Highways Claim Form and I am sorry to hear about your accident.
I should perhaps firstly explain that there is no automatic entitlement to compensation in the event of damage being caused to a vehicle whilst using the
highway.
For any claim against the County Council, as the Highway Authority, to be successful, it is necessary to demonstrate that damage was not only caused by a dangerous defect in the highway but further that the presence of that defect resulted directly from negligence on the part of the County Council.
For the purposes of identifying dangerous defects in need of attention or repair, the County Council has organised a programmed system of inspection of all roads for which it has a maintenance responsibility. Balcombe Road, Turners Hill is a ‘B’ class carriageway. As such, it is subject to routine inspection on a monthly basis. In addition to this, inspections are carried out following specific reports of dangerous defects received from the police or from members of the public.
Prior to your incident, the last routine inspection was carried out on the 12th April 2021. However, prior to this inspection a pothole in the vicinity of your incident location was recorded. This pothole was measured and categorised against the highways maintenance policy and appropriate arrangements made for repair work to be effected.
Under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980, there is a statutory defence upon which the County Council is able to rely where it can be shown that there has been in operation a reasonable system of inspection and repair. I consider that on this occasion the County Council would be able to rely upon this defence.
Naturally I regret that any damage should have been caused to your vehicle, however from the information provided to me I am of the view that this did not involve negligence on the part of the County Council. Therefore, unfortunately I am unable to offer proposals for a settlement of your claim.
We are sorry that you had cause to seek compensation. You may not agree with the decision that has been taken to reject your claim but this does not mean that it was wrong or will be changed if challenged. The decision taken was based upon the information you provided, the knowledge that we have about the defect and location. We will not review a decision unless you provide significant new evidence that has not previously been submitted. The following are not reasons that would provide grounds for us to review our decision (1) the highway has not been inspected frequently enough, (2) a defect should have been repaired sooner than our policy requires and (3) the decision is unfair because you have had to pay for repairs to your vehicle.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to thank you for reporting the matter.
I hit the pothole on the 24th April, giving its exact lat/long coordinates in my report/claim so no confusion as to location etc. As far as I can work out, I think they're saying they inspected it on the 12th, decided it was in need of repair and then did absolutely nothing about it for at least a fortnight after, when I then had the misfortune to encounter it.I should perhaps firstly explain that there is no automatic entitlement to compensation in the event of damage being caused to a vehicle whilst using the
highway.
For any claim against the County Council, as the Highway Authority, to be successful, it is necessary to demonstrate that damage was not only caused by a dangerous defect in the highway but further that the presence of that defect resulted directly from negligence on the part of the County Council.
For the purposes of identifying dangerous defects in need of attention or repair, the County Council has organised a programmed system of inspection of all roads for which it has a maintenance responsibility. Balcombe Road, Turners Hill is a ‘B’ class carriageway. As such, it is subject to routine inspection on a monthly basis. In addition to this, inspections are carried out following specific reports of dangerous defects received from the police or from members of the public.
Prior to your incident, the last routine inspection was carried out on the 12th April 2021. However, prior to this inspection a pothole in the vicinity of your incident location was recorded. This pothole was measured and categorised against the highways maintenance policy and appropriate arrangements made for repair work to be effected.
Under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980, there is a statutory defence upon which the County Council is able to rely where it can be shown that there has been in operation a reasonable system of inspection and repair. I consider that on this occasion the County Council would be able to rely upon this defence.
Naturally I regret that any damage should have been caused to your vehicle, however from the information provided to me I am of the view that this did not involve negligence on the part of the County Council. Therefore, unfortunately I am unable to offer proposals for a settlement of your claim.
We are sorry that you had cause to seek compensation. You may not agree with the decision that has been taken to reject your claim but this does not mean that it was wrong or will be changed if challenged. The decision taken was based upon the information you provided, the knowledge that we have about the defect and location. We will not review a decision unless you provide significant new evidence that has not previously been submitted. The following are not reasons that would provide grounds for us to review our decision (1) the highway has not been inspected frequently enough, (2) a defect should have been repaired sooner than our policy requires and (3) the decision is unfair because you have had to pay for repairs to your vehicle.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to thank you for reporting the matter.
I've had a read on MSE and there's a walk-through for taking things further with FOI requests for inspection info etc but the law firm seem, apparently, to be wise to this with the comments made about not reconsidering based on frequency of inspection, speed of repair etc. WSCC's legal representatives also seem to have been deliberately vague as to how soon it should have been repaired after being assessed for it and whether or not the repair was done within a reasonable time-frame (what should that be?).
In essence is it a lazy council giving me a massive 'f
k off' and trying to discourage me from trying to pursue it any further? Part of me is pissed about how bad the pothole was, coughing up for £300+ of tyre (and very lucky the rim wasn't damaged too). I also had to traipse back up to the location just to take pics (a 60+ mile round trip) as well before I was allowed to submit a claim.Is it worth going back to them with something to push harder for reimbursement and if so, any ideas on how to achieve that? I'd be grateful for your thoughts.
808 Estate said:
Look for the online pot hole reporting sites and see if it was reported at an earlier date.
essayer said:
Do the FOI. It takes ages, and may not be worth the hassle. I appreciate they don’t want to make the records public, but there’s a chance they’re wrong.
I think I'll combine querying the number of reports with the FOI request - make them collate the information for me rather than wasting my own time trawling the site...I will also ask them what their criteria are to repair, how they prioritise based on road type and pothole severity and when the repair was scheduled for. The irony is that despite being what looks like a minor B-road, it's actually a pretty well-used route out of Maidenbower to get onto the M23 south - the other option is to have to head up through town and Three Bridges or get on the M23 north-bound, up to the next junction and loop back on yourself. It's a real pain in the backside.
Re. time frame - I thought that they have to respond legally within 21 days or so?
Edited by Funk on Sunday 1st August 23:40
I took on a council directly for an injury to me over a pothole.
A firm of Solicitors told me they only admit liability in 15% of cases and often threaten to go to court.
One of the things that I did was look at Google Street View and time frame from when the footage was taken. In my case one year before the fall the hole existed.
That and an admission of previous injuries and the relevant act of law saw my success.
A firm of Solicitors told me they only admit liability in 15% of cases and often threaten to go to court.
One of the things that I did was look at Google Street View and time frame from when the footage was taken. In my case one year before the fall the hole existed.
That and an admission of previous injuries and the relevant act of law saw my success.
CarbonV12V said:
Not worth pursuing - if we tried to claim compensation for every pot hole, broekn kerb etc and tried to tie them up with FOI requests etc then we would all be paying £300+ extra on council tax for the extra personnel/insurance anyway.
Life is too short.
Conversely if more people taken the effort to claim it would make it worth their while to maintain the roadways in a safe usable condition, like we pay for many times over already. Its easy to spot potholes when there isnt much else on the road needing attention, but when there are multiple hazards needing your attention and its bad weather its easy to miss one and some are so severe you can ruin a tyre at 15mph.Life is too short.
CarbonV12V said:
Not worth pursuing - if we tried to claim compensation for every pot hole, broekn kerb etc and tried to tie them up with FOI requests etc then we would all be paying £300+ extra on council tax for the extra personnel/insurance anyway.
Life is too short.
Serious potholes injure cyclists and motorbike riders. Life is too short.
The pothole that injured me is still there 8 months on.
If I get £25,000 who should be the loser?
It pays to not repair.
Amey? Who have missed inspection protocol, agreed repair points or legislation?
Who should pay? Who does? Amey of course.
While I'm sorry for anyone who has suffered damage through negligence, I'm also pleased that councils do not hand out money automatically in such circumstances.
They have a statutory defence. You want the money, it is up to you to prove that you are worthy of it. If they knew it was dangerous, to the legal requirement, then they should pay up. If not, then they should not.
From A Local Taxpayer
They have a statutory defence. You want the money, it is up to you to prove that you are worthy of it. If they knew it was dangerous, to the legal requirement, then they should pay up. If not, then they should not.
From A Local Taxpayer
Derek Smith said:
While I'm sorry for anyone who has suffered damage through SOMEONE ELSE's negligence
Surely a pot hole is just like any other hazard - ice, oil, animals etc. That's why you should have insurance. Sometimes st happens and there is no one to blame.If the council had performed their routine inspections and were not aware of a pothole then why should they have to pay?
IJWS15 said:
Risk of lighting blue touchpaper
So you were going too fast and didn't see it in enough time to go around it?
I know where all the big potholes are around here.
23:50 on the crest of a hill, it was invisible. I was below the limit for the road but still hit it at over 50. First time I'd driven back that way, had previously done the 'loop up to the next junction and back down' onto the M23. I now go that way every time again.So you were going too fast and didn't see it in enough time to go around it?
I know where all the big potholes are around here.
Per the first post, it also suggests they'd been aware of it for nearly a fortnight before I had the misfortune to encounter it if I've understood their letter correctly.
Edited by Funk on Monday 2nd August 11:39
as I read there letter they are saying that the pothole had been reported before their inspection on the 12th but they don't say how long before.
I would ask them to advise when it had been reported before the 12th and also as suggested check the public reporting sites to see if they show when it had been reported .
I also suggest you photograph the pothole including a scale such as a ruler or coin in the photo to clearly illustrate how deep the pothole is ,
Depending how strongly you feel about it then pursue or not - we had a similar event also in west sussex and council first response was similar but once we established the hole size and how long before our incident it had been reported to them and that they had not actioned repair they agreed to pay and we were reimbursed.
I would ask them to advise when it had been reported before the 12th and also as suggested check the public reporting sites to see if they show when it had been reported .
I also suggest you photograph the pothole including a scale such as a ruler or coin in the photo to clearly illustrate how deep the pothole is ,
Depending how strongly you feel about it then pursue or not - we had a similar event also in west sussex and council first response was similar but once we established the hole size and how long before our incident it had been reported to them and that they had not actioned repair they agreed to pay and we were reimbursed.
999PJR said:
as I read there letter they are saying that the pothole had been reported before their inspection on the 12th but they don't say how long before.
I would ask them to advise when it had been reported before the 12th and also as suggested check the public reporting sites to see if they show when it had been reported .
I also suggest you photograph the pothole including a scale such as a ruler or coin in the photo to clearly illustrate how deep the pothole is ,
Depending how strongly you feel about it then pursue or not - we had a similar event also in west sussex and council first response was similar but once we established the hole size and how long before our incident it had been reported to them and that they had not actioned repair they agreed to pay and we were reimbursed.
I think that sounds like a good approach, however unfortunately I'm not even sure if the pothole is still there some 3 months later and when I went back to take pictures a couple of days after the event I wasn't happy with the risk of squatting in the road trying to calculate the depth - as mentioned, the road is surprisingly busy for a B-road and not worth the personal risk over the cost of a tyre.I would ask them to advise when it had been reported before the 12th and also as suggested check the public reporting sites to see if they show when it had been reported .
I also suggest you photograph the pothole including a scale such as a ruler or coin in the photo to clearly illustrate how deep the pothole is ,
Depending how strongly you feel about it then pursue or not - we had a similar event also in west sussex and council first response was similar but once we established the hole size and how long before our incident it had been reported to them and that they had not actioned repair they agreed to pay and we were reimbursed.
I did get plenty of photos from the sides of the road at the time though.
Funk said:
IJWS15 said:
Risk of lighting blue touchpaper
So you were going too fast and didn't see it in enough time to go around it?
I know where all the big potholes are around here.
23:50 on the crest of a hill, it was invisible. I was below the limit for the road but still hit it at over 50. First time I'd driven back that way, had previously done the 'loop up to the next junction and back down' onto the M23. I now go that way every time again.So you were going too fast and didn't see it in enough time to go around it?
I know where all the big potholes are around here.
Per the first post, it also suggests they'd been aware of it for nearly a fortnight before I had the misfortune to encounter it if I've understood their letter correctly.
Edited by Funk on Monday 2nd August 11:39
.Edited by CarbonV12V on Monday 2nd August 12:23
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff