Pot Hole - 1, Chimaera - 0 (F**king Councils)

[pena]

I need to know the situation with pot holes on public roads. I hit a pot hole last night, at about 5mph, it was so deep that it shreaded the underside(front of car), off. The body is not hanging off but it looks like a Lion has had a bite off it.

I will be notifing my insurance company in the morning, but I need to know if I can get the council to agree that the pot hole was their responsibility.

I have never claimed for off my insurance company, so am just asking for some advise.

[Heliox]

As I believe it, if you have previously informed the council of said pot hole,ie by letter and they have left it without repair and then consequently you damage your vehicle on it, then you can take action against them.

Sorry to hear of your misfortune,

h

[TeGriffic]

Under the Road Traffic Act the council are only responsible if they knew about the pothole. Failing that, you could try claiming negligence in the civil courts but be warned, burden of proof of negligence isn't easy.

[Graham66]

I damaged 2 wheels on a pot hole on the A3, I took pics of the hole and the damage and wrote to the Highways Agency (they look after the A3) and after much denial and 'looking in to it' I eventually got the money back - too a few months though

So never mind the "did anyone inform the council before hand" bit, it may be the law, but write to them anyway and be polite but insistant that they are responsible and you never know, you might get a refund

NB - I did all of this myself as the claim was less than my insurance excess, if you have one of those policies that recover your costs then they might do it all for you without you having to claim off your insurance

Good luck

Graham

[jam1et]

My mate knackered the suspension, wheel and tyre on his BMW coupe by hiting a pothole. Total cost £1400. The council sent him a form to fill in which he sent off along with some photos. He claimed on his own insurance and is hoping the insurance co. can claim it back off the council and restore his NCB.

The council have since come back and said that the stretch of road was inspected 12 days before his accident and was due to be inspected two days later so thay have done everything they can to maintain the road properly as they have stuck to their inspection schedule. What utter bollocks. At the end of the day they are responsible for the road no matter what their inspection schedule is. Their schedule obviously needs changing! His insurance co. have siad that it is no defence and they are just trying to wriggle out of it, they should be able to claim the compensation.

Stick with it and dont let the bastards get away with it. We pay our extortion money, sorry, taxes, so the least they can do is make the roads drivable.

[Plotloss]

Get back there quick and take a digital photograph.

The council are liable. (Of course, get a mate to send a letter the day before you...)

It will be a fight but its up to them to keep the roads maintained and they havent.

They dont like it up 'em Mr Mainwaring...

>> Edited by Plotloss on Monday 8th March 09:53

[pena]

Am on it....
Will post photos off the road and car later today!

[Dan]

Agreed keep pursuing it. Make sure you get pictures of everything.

We pay enough bloody tax, get the buggers to cough up.

[sidpinup]

Word of advice, digital pictures are NOT admissible as evidence so take a proper Photo too.

[Don]

I am still trying to get £1200 off of the Scottish Executive for a pot-hole that popped TWO tyres on my Porsche last June.

Apparently they think they will settle - and its STILL going to take a full year to get the money!

I didn't claim on my insurance...so I'd really like the damn money.

Good luck - lots of photos and plenty of contemporaeneous notes should help...

[jam1et]

sidpinup said:

Word of advice, digital pictures are NOT admissible as evidence so take a proper Photo too.

I've heard this before but is it actually true? These days you can take a digital pic, take it into Jessops or similar and get it printed like a normal photo anyway. Whats the difference? Is it the negatives that are required? If it is true, I presume it would only matter if the case was ever taken to court which in these cases I doubt would happen.

[sidpinup]

I think you may have to show the image could not have been tampered with and you cant do that with a digital image. I carry a disposalble camera in the car in case of accident etc. Cant be too carful these days.

Ed

Nice car by the way.


>> Edited by sidpinup on Monday 8th March 16:24

[tegriffic]

You might want to copy any letter to your MP. This won't alter the outcome but, from experience, it adds a certain amout of hassle factor which will accelerate the process. Also, when writing, try and quote law and legislation - the affect of this is that when your letter arrives such heavy text will ensure that the letter gets referred to a senior member of their staff. Also, digital pictures are not submissable.

>> Edited by tegriffic on Monday 8th March 18:23

[jigs]

If they can prove that they had a reasonable inspection and repair policy then they aren't negligent and they don't have to compensate you. They'll tell you that's what your insurance is for IMO.

[simpo two]

jigs said:

If they can prove that they had a reasonable inspection and repair policy then they aren't negligent...

But then they obviously are, surely...

[Graham66]

Two things:

Firstly, the highways agency told me they had inspected the road prior to my damage and so "had done all they could" I told them that the size of hole involved (and copied the picture again) could not really have been created in such a short time, and if it could then their schedule should be ammended - this was my last contact with them befor ethey paid up

Secondly, if digital pictures are not admisable then why are the new Speed Scameras all digital??

Graham

[TeGriffic]

Doesn't matter whether they are negligent or not - what matters is whether you can prove it and, with experience of the civil courts and a certain amount of legal training, I can assure you, burden of proof is not easy. Your best bet, if the Council refuses liability, is to make as much fuss and hassle as possible in order to make settlement more preferable. Also, if you do make an insurance claim, remember that recovery rights belong to the insurer - ie. you don't want to be doing anything that might be detrimental to their subrogation success.

[TeGriffic]

Graham66 said:

Secondly, if digital pictures are not admisable then why are the new Speed Scameras all digital??

Because they are stamped and "authenticated" and probably WORM. Your average digital camera isn't. Generally, it is for the court to decide whether or not images are admissible. But you might want to read any number of reports by the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the subject (set up by the government in 1998 I believe) for an up to date position. Last time I looked we were up to eight reports so far, so expect a decision soon - but probably not before the pothole is repaired.

[zumbruk]

TeGriffic said:

Graham66 said: Secondly, if digital pictures are not admisable then why are the new Speed Scameras all digital?? Because they are stamped and "authenticated" and probably WORM.

Naah. "They" just changed the law to make them admissible.