Claiming against a council

[Killer2005]

Hi all, a bit of help needed if possible. I've seen a few of these threads but time for my own (well its for my OH).

Back in march she was driving up a local country lane, it's very poorly maintained with potholes everywhere and no street lighting, and hit one of the bigger potholes which punctured the tyre but there was no damage to the rim. It was a big enough hole in tyre to mean getting a new tyre instead of repairing.

She had gone to the council to claim for the cost of a new tyre however they have sent a letter stating that whilst they were aware of the repairs needed to the road due to an inspection a few weeks prior to my OHs puncture, the fact that they repaired the road a week after the incident means that they are not liable for any claims.

Any thoughts/suggestions as to taking it further or is it a no go?

Thanks

[Ilovetwiglets]

I had a something similar last year, my wife hit a pothole and holed the sump, total bill just under £600. We got absolutely nowhere with the local council and stopped trying in the end, personally I don't think you'll get anywhere but on the plus side your wife is now more aware of potholes and what they can do so you may pay more attention, mine does.

[Fastpedeller]

Killer2005 said:

they have sent a letter stating that whilst they were aware of the repairs needed to the road due to an inspection a few weeks prior to my OHs puncture, the fact that they repaired the road a week after the incident means that they are not liable for any claims.


Thanks

I wish you luck, but from bitter experience you may find you are on a loser. They claim they checked the road... but did they?
In my experience this hasn't been done, and if pushed they send 'proof' which is a huge document showing inspections for the whole County, and 'your' bit of road won't be on it. On further query they will say "we inspected it anyway", and then use YOUR money (and any other taxpayer's money) to fight the case! whilst adding all our hard-eared to their pension pot.. OOer I'd better get off the soap box! My solicitor said "you know and I know they are telling lies, but the Judge will accept their verbal that they checked the road. Bloody corrupt I call it..... If the hole is (and it clearly is) liable to cause damage then they should either fix it immediately or cone it off. Off the soap box now! Must relax.

[Ilovetwiglets]

Fastpedeller said:

I wish you luck, but from bitter experience you may find you are on a loser. They claim they checked the road... but did they?
In my experience this hasn't been done, and if pushed they send 'proof' which is a huge document showing inspections for the whole County, and 'your' bit of road won't be on it. On further query they will say "we inspected it anyway".

That's exactly what happened to us. They escalate it internally if pushed and you get the same answer, is it really worth the hassle for a new tyre?

[flemke]

Killer2005 said:

Hi all, a bit of help needed if possible. I've seen a few of these threads but time for my own (well its for my OH).

Back in march she was driving up a local country lane, it's very poorly maintained with potholes everywhere and no street lighting, and hit one of the bigger potholes which punctured the tyre but there was no damage to the rim. It was a big enough hole in tyre to mean getting a new tyre instead of repairing.

She had gone to the council to claim for the cost of a new tyre however they have sent a letter stating that whilst they were aware of the repairs needed to the road due to an inspection a few weeks prior to my OHs puncture, the fact that they repaired the road a week after the incident means that they are not liable for any claims.

Any thoughts/suggestions as to taking it further or is it a no go?

Thanks

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/how-do-i-report-a-pothole-and-claim-compensation--?gclid=CIrH7qfq-sUCFUzItAodoVgAkw

[Jonsv8]

I believe if you can show the pothole has been reported to them already or they have inspected it and marked it for repair but not yet repaired it, then they are liable. I believe they are not liable when they are unaware of the problem

[WatchfulEye]

Jonsv8 said:

I believe if you can show the pothole has been reported to them already or they have inspected it and marked it for repair but not yet repaired it, then they are liable. I believe they are not liable when they are unaware of the problem

The council are allowed a certain time to repair it after finding it (or being informed about it), depending on its severity. That could be as long as 4 weeks, or it could be as short as 24 hours.

[LoonR1]

Fastpedeller said:

I wish you luck, but from bitter experience you may find you are on a loser. They claim they checked the road... but did they?
In my experience this hasn't been done, and if pushed they send 'proof' which is a huge document showing inspections for the whole County, and 'your' bit of road won't be on it. On further query they will say "we inspected it anyway", and then use YOUR money (and any other taxpayer's money) to fight the case! whilst adding all our hard-eared to their pension pot.. OOer I'd better get off the soap box! My solicitor said "you know and I know they are telling lies, but the Judge will accept their verbal that they checked the road. Bloody corrupt I call it..... If the hole is (and it clearly is) liable to cause damage then they should either fix it immediately or cone it off. Off the soap box now! Must relax.

Whereas what they should be doing is using YOUR money to pay every single one of these claims to anyone who claims regardless. I'd like to see your reaction to the following years Council Tax bill. Alongside which they should employ 10,000s people to check every single road, all the time to prevent potholes being there for long as the 1000s of extra staff they employ just to deal with these potholes can sort it.

Just how much Council Tax are you happy to pay?

[evilmunkey]

Jonsv8 said:

I believe if you can show the pothole has been reported to them already or they have inspected it and marked it for repair but not yet repaired it, then they are liable. I believe they are not liable when they are unaware of the problem

This is correct. I worked for a local authority taking reports from both the inspectors and the public. basically taking the report and passing it to the relevant highways department for auctioning. The above info is correct. we were often told that when a member of the public rang to report damage that we should never offer a claim form. only and only if one was specifically requested would one be sent out. Also we were told never to mention if a report of the fault had been reported before as that would show negligence on the highways side. i remember one road, we had over 40 calls within a 2 week period with some hefty damage to nice cars as it was a very well to do area. it cost the council hundreds of thousands in compensation. So glad i dont do that job anymore !

[Fastpedeller]

LoonR1 said:

Fastpedeller said:

I wish you luck, but from bitter experience you may find you are on a loser. They claim they checked the road... but did they?
In my experience this hasn't been done, and if pushed they send 'proof' which is a huge document showing inspections for the whole County, and 'your' bit of road won't be on it. On further query they will say "we inspected it anyway", and then use YOUR money (and any other taxpayer's money) to fight the case! whilst adding all our hard-eared to their pension pot.. OOer I'd better get off the soap box! My solicitor said "you know and I know they are telling lies, but the Judge will accept their verbal that they checked the road. Bloody corrupt I call it..... If the hole is (and it clearly is) liable to cause damage then they should either fix it immediately or cone it off. Off the soap box now! Must relax.

Whereas what they should be doing is using YOUR money to pay every single one of these claims to anyone who claims regardless. I'd like to see your reaction to the following years Council Tax bill. Alongside which they should employ 10,000s people to check every single road, all the time to prevent potholes being there for long as the 1000s of extra staff they employ just to deal with these potholes can sort it.

Just how much Council Tax are you happy to pay?

That's all very well but they shouldn't be telling porkies! Deserving victims are exactly that - I don't consider saying they check the roads if they haven't done is acceptable when their senior execs earn in excess of 200k per annum.

[Countdown]

Fastpedeller said:

That's all very well but they shouldn't be telling porkies! Deserving victims are exactly that - I don't consider saying they check the roads if they haven't done is acceptable when their senior execs earn in excess of 200k per annum.

Not sure what you mean by "deserving victims"? Accidents happen.If you think your LA and its CEO are rubbish it would be far more beneficial all round to lobby for his replacement via your Councillor.

[Fastpedeller]

Countdown said:

Not sure what you mean by "deserving victims"? Accidents happen.If you think your LA and its CEO are rubbish it would be far more beneficial all round to lobby for his replacement via your Councillor.

Deserving victims may well be those who suffer injury or loss from potholes reporter but not filled! My Sister suffered with this 3 years ago - brand new car a week old, hit a pothole in the dark/wet, which had been white marked - written off wheel/tyre c£300. The Council (different one to mine) denied responsibility - But I'd contest that it is negligence to leave it like that without coning it off or filling it (if only temporarily), but maybe I'm completely unreasonable? Again a solicitor said it wasn't worth pursuing, as they have section 58? defense - A licence to lie.

[LoonR1]

Fastpedeller said:

Deserving victims may well be those who suffer injury or loss from potholes reporter but not filled! My Sister suffered with this 3 years ago - brand new car a week old, hit a pothole in the dark/wet, which had been white marked - written off wheel/tyre c£300. The Council (different one to mine) denied responsibility - But I'd contest that it is negligence to leave it like that without coning it off or filling it (if only temporarily), but maybe I'm completely unreasonable? Again a solicitor said it wasn't worth pursuing, as they have section 58? defense - A licence to lie.

So how do you define "deserving"? Is it just people related to you? Or maybe only people with new cars? Maybe the council,should employ a load of people to get these claims, so what ever they save they pay out in extra salaries.

Come on, how much would you be happy to pay in council tax? Everything you're suggesting is going to cost a chunk of money and you'll be paying for it.

[Fastpedeller]

LoonR1 said:

Fastpedeller said:

Deserving victims may well be those who suffer injury or loss from potholes reporter but not filled! My Sister suffered with this 3 years ago - brand new car a week old, hit a pothole in the dark/wet, which had been white marked - written off wheel/tyre c£300. The Council (different one to mine) denied responsibility - But I'd contest that it is negligence to leave it like that without coning it off or filling it (if only temporarily), but maybe I'm completely unreasonable? Again a solicitor said it wasn't worth pursuing, as they have section 58? defense - A licence to lie.

So how do you define "deserving"? Is it just people related to you? Or maybe only people with new cars? Maybe the council,should employ a load of people to get these claims, so what ever they save they pay out in extra salaries.

Come on, how much would you be happy to pay in council tax? Everything you're suggesting is going to cost a chunk of money and you'll be paying for it.

I can only think you are a troll or work for a Council

[Sheepshanks]

evilmunkey said:

Jonsv8 said:

I believe if you can show the pothole has been reported to them already or they have inspected it and marked it for repair but not yet repaired it, then they are liable. I believe they are not liable when they are unaware of the problem

This is correct. I worked for a local authority taking reports from both the inspectors and the public. basically taking the report and passing it to the relevant highways department for auctioning. The above info is correct. we were often told that when a member of the public rang to report damage that we should never offer a claim form. only and only if one was specifically requested would one be sent out. Also we were told never to mention if a report of the fault had been reported before as that would show negligence on the highways side. i remember one road, we had over 40 calls within a 2 week period with some hefty damage to nice cars as it was a very well to do area. it cost the council hundreds of thousands in compensation. So glad i dont do that job anymore !

Certainly councils are constantly whinging about how much they have to pay out in compensation so the experiences of the first few posters can't be universal.

[LoonR1]

Fastpedeller said:

I can only think you are a troll or work for a Council

I certainly don't work for a council. I guess the fact that you won't answer of my questions, because I have a different view to you means I'm a troll.

Come on. Answer the questions asked.

[Fastpedeller]

LoonR1 said:

I certainly don't work for a council. I guess the fact that you won't answer of my questions, because I have a different view to you means I'm a troll.

Come on. Answer the questions asked.

My intention isn't to answer your "questions" - Indeed why should I? I'd prefer to help the OP.

OP I'd suggest you look on www.fillthathole.co.uk and other similar 3rd party sites for any evidence that the holes have previously been reported. It wouldn't surprise me if the Council are just telling porkies!

[Jonsv8]

LoonR1 said:

Fastpedeller said:

Deserving victims may well be those who suffer injury or loss from potholes reporter but not filled! My Sister suffered with this 3 years ago - brand new car a week old, hit a pothole in the dark/wet, which had been white marked - written off wheel/tyre c£300. The Council (different one to mine) denied responsibility - But I'd contest that it is negligence to leave it like that without coning it off or filling it (if only temporarily), but maybe I'm completely unreasonable? Again a solicitor said it wasn't worth pursuing, as they have section 58? defense - A licence to lie.

So how do you define "deserving"? Is it just people related to you? Or maybe only people with new cars? Maybe the council,should employ a load of people to get these claims, so what ever they save they pay out in extra salaries.

Come on, how much would you be happy to pay in council tax? Everything you're suggesting is going to cost a chunk of money and you'll be paying for it.

In fairness, all victims are deserving if the council have gone out, looked at a socking big hole in the road, marked it with a bit of paint as if they'd miss it when they came to repair it but do nothing to warn the public who then incur financial loss. A supermarket stick up a slippy floor sign if someone has dropped a grape.

[V8 Fettler]

The number of potholes would fall substantially if local authorities managed the repair process competently.

[LoonR1]

Believe it or not, I'm not pro-Council. I believe they piss money up the wall for fun, but I struggle with this pothole piece. Why doesn't every car get damaged that drives down the road? Surely 10% should get damaged given they may take different lines?

Either way, it's a Catch 22; the more people successfully claim, the less money there is to fill the holes in, so the more claim and so on. That is until the council reaches a point where it needs to fill in the figurative hole in its accounts and the literal holes in the road and whack everyone's council tax up by a significant amount.