Damage from ironworks in road

[Biker9090]

Does anyone know who's responsible for ensuring ironworks (manhole covers etc) are at the correct height to the adjoining road surfaces?

Specifically talking about those owned by utility companies rather than the grate style drains/gullies.

Both from a standpoint of general maintenance and when the road has been "resurfaced" and they now sit 2/3" below the rest of the road?

[bad company]

Take photos and measurements before making a claim/complaint. I speak from experience.

[Biker9090]

bad company said:

Take photos and measurements before making a claim/complaint. I speak from experience.

I do have a number of photos.

I'm more interested in making sure other bad ones are dealt with and who's responsible before they do someone else a nuisance as well.

[qwerty360]

Assuming its on a road, report it on fixmystreet/council.

They may make the utility company rectify if they recently did work.

(Worst 'pothole' I have seen was a drain collapse after utility company works. Was fixed within 12 hours of me reporting it (though apparently wasn't the first to report it but it was same day); Rumour is someone at the council let the utility firm know it was being inspected the next day and if it was in the state the photos implied (big enough for me to drop a bicycle in fully!) when the inspector turned up the utility firm would be billed whatever the council contractor quoted to drop everything to start fixing it same day (+ an insane admin fee from the council)...

[BertBert]

2/3rd inch. Really?

[Dave.]

BertBert said:

2/3rd inch. Really?

I'm gonna hazard a guess that he meant "two or three inches" rather than "two thirds of an inch".... But then you probably already knew that....

[paul_c123]

Biker9090 said:

Does anyone know who's responsible for ensuring ironworks (manhole covers etc) are at the correct height to the adjoining road surfaces?

Specifically talking about those owned by utility companies rather than the grate style drains/gullies.

Both from a standpoint of general maintenance and when the road has been "resurfaced" and they now sit 2/3" below the rest of the road?

Firstly, you need to clarify if its 2/3", 2" or 3". Its kinda important.

Secondly, if its not a main road, then they won't do anything if its 2" or less. 2-3" gets a 4 month response and over 3", it should be within a few days. All the details here: https://www.deanshangerparishcouncil.org.uk/upload... . This is obviously just one council but I imagine the others use broadly similar definitions and criteria for their theoretical response.

[MontyPythonX]

qwerty360 said:

Assuming its on a road, report it on fixmystreet/council.

They may make the utility company rectify if they recently did work.

(Worst 'pothole' I have seen was a drain collapse after utility company works. Was fixed within 12 hours of me reporting it (though apparently wasn't the first to report it but it was same day); Rumour is someone at the council let the utility firm know it was being inspected the next day and if it was in the state the photos implied (big enough for me to drop a bicycle in fully!) when the inspector turned up the utility firm would be billed whatever the council contractor quoted to drop everything to start fixing it same day (+ an insane admin fee from the council) ...

The cynic in me says they would then pass this cost directly on to their customers in the form of increased bills.

[nute]

paul_c123 said:

Biker9090 said:

Does anyone know who's responsible for ensuring ironworks (manhole covers etc) are at the correct height to the adjoining road surfaces?

Specifically talking about those owned by utility companies rather than the grate style drains/gullies.

Both from a standpoint of general maintenance and when the road has been "resurfaced" and they now sit 2/3" below the rest of the road?

Firstly, you need to clarify if its 2/3", 2" or 3". Its kinda important.

Secondly, if its not a main road, then they won't do anything if its 2" or less. 2-3" gets a 4 month response and over 3", it should be within a few days. All the details here: https://www.deanshangerparishcouncil.org.uk/upload... . This is obviously just one council but I imagine the others use broadly similar definitions and criteria for their theoretical response.

Ridiculous when the govt is blathering about protecting vulnerable road users and reducing pollution. Three inches on two wheels is bloody dangerous, and all irregularities increase tyre wear and so particulate pollution.

[Biker9090]

paul_c123 said:

Firstly, you need to clarify if its 2/3", 2" or 3". Its kinda important.

Secondly, if its not a main road, then they won't do anything if its 2" or less. 2-3" gets a 4 month response and over 3", it should be within a few days. All the details here: https://www.deanshangerparishcouncil.org.uk/upload... . This is obviously just one council but I imagine the others use broadly similar definitions and criteria for their theoretical response.

2 TO 3 inches at least. They are on 60mph roads.

I know the intervention limit for councils - I am specifically asking about who's responsibility the IRONWORKS are - not potholes.

[Simpo Two]

MontyPythonX said:

The cynic in me says they would then pass this cost directly on to their customers in the form of increased bills

One problem is that the worker who actually earns £100 to do the work ends up being charged out at several thousand by the time all the systems have clunked round, the three way stop is put in for a week by a team of 5 people and the admin people have had meetings about it.

[Biker9090]

nute said:

Ridiculous when the govt is blathering about protecting vulnerable road users and reducing pollution. Three inches on two wheels is bloody dangerous, and all irregularities increase tyre wear and so particulate pollution.

Finally a sensible response.

Yes, this is specifcally due to getting pig sick of a few roads on my commute being totally ignored re ironworks

[TheDrownedApe]

I've had two instances where the Ironworks were deemed "at fault" and in both cases the council directed me to the owners, namely utility companies.

However on contacting them they deny all knowledge and both stated they subcontract the work out to 3rd parties and it was their responsibility. Further investigation led to them blaming the utility company!

it was a fruitless exercise

[paul_c123]

Biker9090 said:

2 TO 3 inches at least. They are on 60mph roads.

I know the intervention limit for councils - I am specifically asking about who's responsibility the IRONWORKS are - not potholes.

There's something of a complex chain of subcontractors etc but I think for the general public, the first port of call is the council; or National Highways if its a trunk road (in England). And that ironworks are part of a broader definition of road imperfections which mainly consists of potholes, but its judged on the same measurements etc.

The chain of command is probably something like:

council --> Utility Company --> sub-contractor --> sub-contractor (may repeat more than twice).

So while you might approach eg the Utility Company or their sub-contractor, You don't have a contract/relationship with them and they are not answerable to you, have no responsibility directly towards the public, etc so it will go nowhere. If the council say contact the utility company directly, they are avoiding taking responsibility!! It is THEIR job to do that, since they have the contract/relationship with them.

It might well be a separate firm which the council uses to repair previous ironworks defects anyway, and its possible a previous repair has failed etc.

[MustangGT]

Dave. said:

BertBert said:

2/3rd inch. Really?

I'm gonna hazard a guess that he meant "two or three inches" rather than "two thirds of an inch".... But then you probably already knew that....

Reading the OP he is talking about a change in height following re-surfacing works. We are not looking at potholes. In this instance I read it as the ironwork being 2/3rds inch either up or down from the road surface level.

[Dave.]

MustangGT said:

Reading the OP he is talking about a change in height following re-surfacing works. We are not looking at potholes. In this instance I read it as the ironwork being 2/3rds inch either up or down from the road surface level.

Not many people refer to measurements in thirds of inches, and who would even notice a 17mm deviation in the road surface?

[MustangGT]

Dave. said:

MustangGT said:

Reading the OP he is talking about a change in height following re-surfacing works. We are not looking at potholes. In this instance I read it as the ironwork being 2/3rds inch either up or down from the road surface level.

Not many people refer to measurements in thirds of inches, and who would even notice a 17mm deviation in the road surface?

Agreed on the measurement basis, 17mm is more useful nowadays. However, I would think every driver would notice a 17mm difference in height, that is quite significant.

[Biker9090]

Ignoring the continued fascination with a typo.....

Openreach seem to be just as totally contradictory as anyone else.

One particular favoutite commute route was allegedly resurfaced and the ironworks not raised back up to level.

For some reason they take responsibility for changing some of these but not all...... (even though they confirmed ownership of all that I logged).

Those they have taken responsibility for have been fixed last night with a "fairly large emergency road closure".

Many of the others seem to have been partially or completely tarmacced over by the road crews - thereby impeding access or simply left at TWO TO THREE inches below the rest of the (60mph) road surface.

So whilst some have been sorted out we are still nowhere near the answer.....

Prime example of shoddy work here



One of those the Engineer deemed an immediate safety risk



The start of those half tarmacced over.....



Again, coming at this from someone absolutely pig sick of having to play bloody slalom with these things in both car and bike - with the resulting costs in dam suspension refurbs!

[Dave.]

MustangGT said:

Agreed on the measurement basis, 17mm is more useful nowadays. However, I would think every driver would notice a 17mm difference in height, that is quite significant.

I should have written “notice 17mm amongst all the other imperfections”