A tale of two potholes
Discussion
Gents,
Last month I got a call from my better half as her parents were stuck on a local common with a flat tyre, I was able to duck out of work to take a look.
Completely flat tyre and dented alloy, their breakdown service had broken down, so replaced wheel with their 'get home' wheel.
The following day they went and bought, at a cost of less than three hundred pounds, a replacement wheel and tyre at which point Fil asked why the LA wouldn't be liable.
The flat was caused by driving into a flaw in the road surface, extending about a third of the way into their lane and 22 cms deep, they had been forced to engage with it by an oncoming lorry.
I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
I have pictures of the hole with GPS co ordinates and pictures of its repair, again with time, date and co ordinates.
I also have time to take this to court.
My concern however is that doing so will reduce the available resource of my local council.
So the real question is, should I pursue this can I, correctly IMHO, take back some of the undeserved profit from the private contractor, or will I negatively affect my local road budget?
The in laws are perfectly capable of paying for the damage they suffered, and though mildly shocked have suffered no injury.
I am however slightly affronted by the implication of dishonesty I received after an honest warning to the LA of a significant hazard.
Last month I got a call from my better half as her parents were stuck on a local common with a flat tyre, I was able to duck out of work to take a look.
Completely flat tyre and dented alloy, their breakdown service had broken down, so replaced wheel with their 'get home' wheel.
The following day they went and bought, at a cost of less than three hundred pounds, a replacement wheel and tyre at which point Fil asked why the LA wouldn't be liable.
The flat was caused by driving into a flaw in the road surface, extending about a third of the way into their lane and 22 cms deep, they had been forced to engage with it by an oncoming lorry.
I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
I have pictures of the hole with GPS co ordinates and pictures of its repair, again with time, date and co ordinates.
I also have time to take this to court.
My concern however is that doing so will reduce the available resource of my local council.
So the real question is, should I pursue this can I, correctly IMHO, take back some of the undeserved profit from the private contractor, or will I negatively affect my local road budget?
The in laws are perfectly capable of paying for the damage they suffered, and though mildly shocked have suffered no injury.
I am however slightly affronted by the implication of dishonesty I received after an honest warning to the LA of a significant hazard.
stitched said:
....
I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
...
Are you questioning the validity of their evidence that it was inspected 6 days earlier?I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
...
Has the defect been repaired now?
They can't repair things that they are not aware of.
No ideas for a name said:
stitched said:
....
I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
...
Are you questioning the validity of their evidence that it was inspected 6 days earlier?I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
...
Has the defect been repaired now?
They can't repair things that they are not aware of.
As said in laws are not overly affected, and can easily afford the minor costs incurred,
I am mildly offended by the implication of dishonesty followed by the immediate removal of evidence.
Original question still stands, can I sue the private contractor without affecting the funds for road repair?
Oh and I have requested evidence of the inspection via FOI, just not sure whether to proceed.
I think I'd let it go. Life is too short.
You've done your bit and reported the problem which has now been repaired protecting other motorists.
Your in-laws are fine and like you've said have replaced the wheel and tyre.
I understand you feel insulted that the a
hole called you a liar, but the world is full of them, how far do you go?
Perhaps make a phone call, or send another email to the appropriate address and make an official complaint, but otherwise waste no more life on it.
You've done your bit and reported the problem which has now been repaired protecting other motorists.
Your in-laws are fine and like you've said have replaced the wheel and tyre.
I understand you feel insulted that the a
hole called you a liar, but the world is full of them, how far do you go?Perhaps make a phone call, or send another email to the appropriate address and make an official complaint, but otherwise waste no more life on it.
stitched said:
No ideas for a name said:
stitched said:
....
I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
...
Are you questioning the validity of their evidence that it was inspected 6 days earlier?I sent an e mail to the local highways authority regarding the flaw and was answered by a private contractor, in less than polite terms they called me a liar, provided evidence that they had inspected that piece of road 6 days earlier and found no defect.
Meanwhile they dispatched a rapid response team to repair the non existent flaw.
...
Has the defect been repaired now?
They can't repair things that they are not aware of.
As said in laws are not overly affected, and can easily afford the minor costs incurred,
I am mildly offended by the implication of dishonesty followed by the immediate removal of evidence.
Original question still stands, can I sue the private contractor without affecting the funds for road repair?
Oh and I have requested evidence of the inspection via FOI, just not sure whether to proceed.
I read you original posting as they had already supplied you with the 'evidence' they had inspected it 6 days prior.
It is surely a good thing that once you reported it, they were then out to fix it. I don't think they were hiding the evidence, just making sure that no one else falls down the hole (and minimising any claims).
As I understand it, the organisation responsible for the roads has to have an inspection schedule... and as long as they stick to that, then they will claim they can't 'reasonably know' about the defect occuring within that time. I think this time is in the order of about a month (though don't quote me on that). Therefore, it is possible that an inspection takes place, and a defect appears before the next inspection. All sorts of arguments of how quick a defect 'develops' and whether they ignore minor defects until they become major.
I would think that it is the Council that is responsible regardless of who they sub that out to. Therefore any claim is effectively against the Council and public funds - whether the Council can then counter claim that from the contractor is another issue. For a £300 claim, I would imaging it isn't worth while the Council reclaiming it.
I understand it is sometimes a point of princliple - I reported a defect last week, inspector has been out, its hasn't been marked nor repaired, but the Council reported back to say it is someone else's responsibility. So, we have a collapsed grid which will cause damage and claims - I have done my bit. No doubt it will get worse and do damage or have someone off a bike and then develop in to a bigger claim.
Edited by No ideas for a name on Monday 29th March 10:37
In your position I'd be keen to see "justice done" which means the damage paid for by those who have failed to maintain the road. To encourage them to care a bit more. The roads round here (Suffolk) are an utter disgrace. I know some of the potholes by name - but if you aren't local or if it's raining hard so they are full it's not so easy
One comment - I don't think you can sue for what you haven't lost (I'm not a lawyer) - so the people who have made the loss - which may go beyond damage to wheel and tyre (ie suspension may be damaged) would have to be a party to any claim/case
Good luck, Mike
One comment - I don't think you can sue for what you haven't lost (I'm not a lawyer) - so the people who have made the loss - which may go beyond damage to wheel and tyre (ie suspension may be damaged) would have to be a party to any claim/case
Good luck, Mike
stitched said:
Gents,
My concern however is that doing so will reduce the available resource of my local council.
So the real question is, should I pursue this can I, correctly IMHO, take back some of the undeserved profit from the private contractor, or will I negatively affect my local road budget?
If you genuinely are concerned about the council road budget, then let it go. Write an angry letter/email, do NOT send it, read it back to yourself a few days later, calm down, and forget about it. My concern however is that doing so will reduce the available resource of my local council.
So the real question is, should I pursue this can I, correctly IMHO, take back some of the undeserved profit from the private contractor, or will I negatively affect my local road budget?
Every single claim, even those which are justified, reduces the available pot of money. Even if the initial cost is to the private contractor, which it won't be anyway, the council will end up paying for it in increased charges next time round. In this case, if the contractor can show evidence that it was inspected 6 days earlier and it wasn't there (it's surprising how quickly some huge potholes can appear), then they won't be liable for anything, council will incur court or legal costs, compensation costs etc and will probably end up reducing their funds by significantly more than the cost of the damaged tyre and wheel.
Although it's annoying, if it's not a financial hardship, you may as well let it go. If it wasn't for that rude man on the phone, you wouldn't even be considering making a claim, and it really isn't the council's fault that the man at the contractor's office was so rude. You know you're the better person, and he's the one who sees a t**t every time he looks in the mirror.
Forget about the inconsequential little twerp and have drink instead.
The big issue with potholes is people will rant about them but can't be bothered to report (fillthathole.org.uk - For people who complain about cyclists (given the CTC developed and runs it...))
I have stopped while cycling to photo/report potholes and had residents comment that it is pointless because the council won't bother fixing it... Yet the ones serious enough to report are usually fixed within 48 hours (or they decide it isn't worth fixing at all)...
I will achnowledge that if I am reporting a hole it is probably massive (and often after roadworks where something wasn't fixed properly...)
Something to do with the report making the council liable if they don't have reasonable procedures in place to fix once aware... Also if it is directly after roadworks they can easily persue whomever dug up the road to rectify.
I have stopped while cycling to photo/report potholes and had residents comment that it is pointless because the council won't bother fixing it... Yet the ones serious enough to report are usually fixed within 48 hours (or they decide it isn't worth fixing at all)...
I will achnowledge that if I am reporting a hole it is probably massive (and often after roadworks where something wasn't fixed properly...)
Something to do with the report making the council liable if they don't have reasonable procedures in place to fix once aware... Also if it is directly after roadworks they can easily persue whomever dug up the road to rectify.
How this works - I deal with this as part of my job and my team look after claims made against an LA.
It's a big topic, however I will try and give a brief overview.
It is accepted that LAs cannot check their whole network daily and so most LAs will have an inspection regime. Generally, more strategic routes will be inspected more often and roads, such as cul-de-sacs, will be inspected less frequently.
If an inspection identifies a safety defect (what constitutes one of these is a topic in itself so I won’t get into that other than to say a 20+cm deep hole in the carriageway would) then the LA will assign a response time to it. LAs are not expected to be able to fix everything immediately and should repair on a priority basis. The LA should look at the probability of a defect being encountered and what the likely consequences would be and determine the risk the defect poses and prioritise a repair accordingly. Risk based approach.
If the road was inspected as per its inspection regime and the defect was repaired within the timescale they give for such a defect, the chances of a successful claim are not high. When we get notified of a defect, we will send someone to inspect it and assign an appropriate response.
People assume that because a defect is large that is must have been there a long time and the LA must know. I've seen a 20cm pothole appear in less than 24 hours in the right conditions. When claims go to court (very few do and are usually handled by the LAs insurer), the courts generally accept the LAs defence if they have behaved reasonably - a proportionate response, a reasonable inspection regime etc. This is why I tell people to report potholes – when I tell people what I do for a job I am always told “there is a pothole at xxxx” – I respond asking if they have reported it. 95% of the time the answer is no. If you report it, the LA has an obligation to investigate. If they don’t, they may become liable if people hit it. By reporting you will hopefully get it fixed, and if not you’ll help anyone who hits it to make a successful claim.
Money saving expert and other forums love to tell people to put in FOI requests on inspection frequencies etc - that's a great way of wasting public resources and is pretty pointless. When we get a claim, we send out a claim form. That gets passed to our insurer. They then come and ask us if we inspected/repaired etc as per what we should have done. We respond and provide records. If we have failed, they pay. If we haven’t, they defend. If after that someone wants to go to court the process continues but that is rare as it's a lot of work for a potential of only a few hundred quid to gain.
Now LAs do differ so I can only speak generically, however I would suggest you request a claim form from the LA, fill it out and see what happens. The LA doesn't reject a claim automatically, out of spite etc so if it is rejected, that was most likely the LAs insurers decision based upon them being happy the LA could defend this in court. If you claim and it's rejected, you can then choose to take it to court at which point you'd then look at FOI stuff. As I say, it's a tiny percentage of claims that ever get this far.
If you want to know more on the topic of safety inspections and how roads should be repaired, the link below is to the code of practice that most UK authorities aim to adhere to. The courts tend to be happy if the LA can argue they have behaved reasonably and followed the code of practice.
https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/11915/well-managed_h...
Being specific to your situation - If the road was inspected 6 days previously and no defect was found and after you reported one they rapidly fixed it then it looks like they acted reasonably. It sounds like the LA have contracted out this work - some do, some do in house. Trunk roads are usually a highways agency.
You ask about cost to the LA. Ultimately, yes, if you claim it will have an impact on the LAs resources/budget. It won’t be direct, but it will happen. Our insurance premium is affected not just by successful claims, but also total claims, even if we can defend them.
I'll leave it to you to make your mind up what you want to do and I won’t comment on the tone of any correspondence you received without having read it - we try not to antagonise those who complain to us as normally it just makes your life worse (though it can be hard at times as we get some insane claims and correspondence - my favourite that came in over the weekend is from someone unhappy there is a grit bin on his street so is complaining to me it is rusty. It is 100% plastic. I must respond to this. It's hard. I digress.)
Hope that is of some help. Huge topic so excuse the long post – it’s hard to be concise with these sometimes.
It's a big topic, however I will try and give a brief overview.
It is accepted that LAs cannot check their whole network daily and so most LAs will have an inspection regime. Generally, more strategic routes will be inspected more often and roads, such as cul-de-sacs, will be inspected less frequently.
If an inspection identifies a safety defect (what constitutes one of these is a topic in itself so I won’t get into that other than to say a 20+cm deep hole in the carriageway would) then the LA will assign a response time to it. LAs are not expected to be able to fix everything immediately and should repair on a priority basis. The LA should look at the probability of a defect being encountered and what the likely consequences would be and determine the risk the defect poses and prioritise a repair accordingly. Risk based approach.
If the road was inspected as per its inspection regime and the defect was repaired within the timescale they give for such a defect, the chances of a successful claim are not high. When we get notified of a defect, we will send someone to inspect it and assign an appropriate response.
People assume that because a defect is large that is must have been there a long time and the LA must know. I've seen a 20cm pothole appear in less than 24 hours in the right conditions. When claims go to court (very few do and are usually handled by the LAs insurer), the courts generally accept the LAs defence if they have behaved reasonably - a proportionate response, a reasonable inspection regime etc. This is why I tell people to report potholes – when I tell people what I do for a job I am always told “there is a pothole at xxxx” – I respond asking if they have reported it. 95% of the time the answer is no. If you report it, the LA has an obligation to investigate. If they don’t, they may become liable if people hit it. By reporting you will hopefully get it fixed, and if not you’ll help anyone who hits it to make a successful claim.
Money saving expert and other forums love to tell people to put in FOI requests on inspection frequencies etc - that's a great way of wasting public resources and is pretty pointless. When we get a claim, we send out a claim form. That gets passed to our insurer. They then come and ask us if we inspected/repaired etc as per what we should have done. We respond and provide records. If we have failed, they pay. If we haven’t, they defend. If after that someone wants to go to court the process continues but that is rare as it's a lot of work for a potential of only a few hundred quid to gain.
Now LAs do differ so I can only speak generically, however I would suggest you request a claim form from the LA, fill it out and see what happens. The LA doesn't reject a claim automatically, out of spite etc so if it is rejected, that was most likely the LAs insurers decision based upon them being happy the LA could defend this in court. If you claim and it's rejected, you can then choose to take it to court at which point you'd then look at FOI stuff. As I say, it's a tiny percentage of claims that ever get this far.
If you want to know more on the topic of safety inspections and how roads should be repaired, the link below is to the code of practice that most UK authorities aim to adhere to. The courts tend to be happy if the LA can argue they have behaved reasonably and followed the code of practice.
https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/11915/well-managed_h...
Being specific to your situation - If the road was inspected 6 days previously and no defect was found and after you reported one they rapidly fixed it then it looks like they acted reasonably. It sounds like the LA have contracted out this work - some do, some do in house. Trunk roads are usually a highways agency.
You ask about cost to the LA. Ultimately, yes, if you claim it will have an impact on the LAs resources/budget. It won’t be direct, but it will happen. Our insurance premium is affected not just by successful claims, but also total claims, even if we can defend them.
I'll leave it to you to make your mind up what you want to do and I won’t comment on the tone of any correspondence you received without having read it - we try not to antagonise those who complain to us as normally it just makes your life worse (though it can be hard at times as we get some insane claims and correspondence - my favourite that came in over the weekend is from someone unhappy there is a grit bin on his street so is complaining to me it is rusty. It is 100% plastic. I must respond to this. It's hard. I digress.)
Hope that is of some help. Huge topic so excuse the long post – it’s hard to be concise with these sometimes.
Whatever the ins and outs of the pothole itself are, if the contractor is being impolite and accusing you of dishonesty, then perhaps you should at least report this to the local authority. Surely the local authority should be concerned about how their contractors deal with members of the public?
We had a similar situation recently which destroyed 2 alloys and 2 tyres. During very bad weather a hole appeared very quickly around a blocked gully.
Can you believe that Polo alloy wheels are £650 each !
So as previously stated the LA are not liable if the pot hole has not been reported to them. They cannot fix something they are not aware of.
This particular hole had been reported, but it was reported on the Saturday, and we ( and many others ) had our cars damaged on the Sunday. Therefore they argued that it was reasonable for them to not to repair at the weekend, and they had until Monday to respond.
When I was rescuing SWMBO we watched 4 other cars suffer the same fate so we called the police. Within the hour LA workers were out placing cones around the hole to alert motorists to the danger. They therefore had the resource available do this.
If this action had be taken none of the subsequent damage would have happened to us or anyone else. Surely it could be argued that they were negligent in not taking safety precautions when they knew of the problem ?
Can you believe that Polo alloy wheels are £650 each !
So as previously stated the LA are not liable if the pot hole has not been reported to them. They cannot fix something they are not aware of.
This particular hole had been reported, but it was reported on the Saturday, and we ( and many others ) had our cars damaged on the Sunday. Therefore they argued that it was reasonable for them to not to repair at the weekend, and they had until Monday to respond.
When I was rescuing SWMBO we watched 4 other cars suffer the same fate so we called the police. Within the hour LA workers were out placing cones around the hole to alert motorists to the danger. They therefore had the resource available do this.
If this action had be taken none of the subsequent damage would have happened to us or anyone else. Surely it could be argued that they were negligent in not taking safety precautions when they knew of the problem ?
They are not liable if the road was inspected within an appropriate timescale and any detected defects were repaired within an appropriate timescale.
The timescales for both depend on the road and the severity of the defect, so a crater on the A1 gets repaired quicker than a small pothole on a country lane.
You'll need to request the council provides their timelines, and inspection/repair records for the stretch of road in question - it may be quickest to use a FOI request for this. From then it's probably a 12 month fight to claim.
The timescales for both depend on the road and the severity of the defect, so a crater on the A1 gets repaired quicker than a small pothole on a country lane.
You'll need to request the council provides their timelines, and inspection/repair records for the stretch of road in question - it may be quickest to use a FOI request for this. From then it's probably a 12 month fight to claim.
QuickQuack said:
stitched said:
Gents,
My concern however is that doing so will reduce the available resource of my local council.
So the real question is, should I pursue this can I, correctly IMHO, take back some of the undeserved profit from the private contractor, or will I negatively affect my local road budget?
If you genuinely are concerned about the council road budget, then let it go. Write an angry letter/email, do NOT send it, read it back to yourself a few days later, calm down, and forget about it. My concern however is that doing so will reduce the available resource of my local council.
So the real question is, should I pursue this can I, correctly IMHO, take back some of the undeserved profit from the private contractor, or will I negatively affect my local road budget?
Every single claim, even those which are justified, reduces the available pot of money. Even if the initial cost is to the private contractor, which it won't be anyway, the council will end up paying for it in increased charges next time round. In this case, if the contractor can show evidence that it was inspected 6 days earlier and it wasn't there (it's surprising how quickly some huge potholes can appear), then they won't be liable for anything, council will incur court or legal costs, compensation costs etc and will probably end up reducing their funds by significantly more than the cost of the damaged tyre and wheel.
Although it's annoying, if it's not a financial hardship, you may as well let it go. If it wasn't for that rude man on the phone, you wouldn't even be considering making a claim, and it really isn't the council's fault that the man at the contractor's office was so rude. You know you're the better person, and he's the one who sees a t**t every time he looks in the mirror.
Forget about the inconsequential little twerp and have drink instead.
Along with the legal challenge I would be entitled to submit and a link to 7 similar cases which were lost by the LA.
I will not be following this up with legal action as it appears I would be robbing my local roads budget as opposed the chancers who have the contract.
Many thanks to all who contributed information and advice.
Love this place.
Stitched
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff