Highways - moving the goal posts!
Discussion
God only knows where this should be posted - but I'm sure it'll be moved accordingly....
To cut a long story short - I damaged my suspension on my a huge (4") deep pothole on a local dual carraigeway.....I obviously wrote to the council and kindly requested they pay for the replacement springs I had to have.
They refered me to their insurers who wrote back and said, bascially, that the council has a rigorous highways checking procedure and as they did not pick up this fault, it obviously wasn't there (or if it was it wasn't a problem)
Soon after this letter, they mended said pot-hole.
I wrote back to the insurers and said that there was obviously a problem with the road, as it has now been rectified. Please send me money.
I have just received another letter that says that the council has shown by sorting the pot-hole that they have an affective system of inspection.
Erm....is this not contrary to their first letter?
And to top the lettter off, the final paragraph says "Liability remains firmly in denial"
OK - I deny it was my fault - pay up!
To cut a long story short - I damaged my suspension on my a huge (4") deep pothole on a local dual carraigeway.....I obviously wrote to the council and kindly requested they pay for the replacement springs I had to have.
They refered me to their insurers who wrote back and said, bascially, that the council has a rigorous highways checking procedure and as they did not pick up this fault, it obviously wasn't there (or if it was it wasn't a problem)
Soon after this letter, they mended said pot-hole.
I wrote back to the insurers and said that there was obviously a problem with the road, as it has now been rectified. Please send me money.
I have just received another letter that says that the council has shown by sorting the pot-hole that they have an affective system of inspection.
Erm....is this not contrary to their first letter?
And to top the lettter off, the final paragraph says "Liability remains firmly in denial"
OK - I deny it was my fault - pay up!
Edited by JCB123 on Friday 7th August 13:31
Whoever breaks Defence will have to fix it with de hammer and de nails. - Raving Monster Loony Party 2005 Manifesto
Anyway you should of gotten a picture of it before they filled it since now they can just say it was not deep enough to warrant compensation and your suspension was faulty previously.
Scum bags they are.
Anyway you should of gotten a picture of it before they filled it since now they can just say it was not deep enough to warrant compensation and your suspension was faulty previously.
Scum bags they are.
Carfiend said:
Whoever breaks Defence will have to fix it with de hammer and de nails. - Raving Monster Loony Party 2005 Manifesto
Anyway you should of gotten a picture of it before they filled it since now they can just say it was not deep enough to warrant compensation and your suspension was faulty previously.
Scum bags they are.
Don't worrie, the stuff they've just filled it will all become loose and come out within a week. Anyway you should of gotten a picture of it before they filled it since now they can just say it was not deep enough to warrant compensation and your suspension was faulty previously.
Scum bags they are.
Seems to be what happens around here.
Carfiend said:
Whoever breaks Defence will have to fix it with de hammer and de nails. - Raving Monster Loony Party 2005 Manifesto
Anyway you should of gotten a picture of it before they filled it since now they can just say it was not deep enough to warrant compensation and your suspension was faulty previously.
Scum bags they are.
I did! And the car was only a week out of the showroom with RAC and MOT inspections just completed, proving the cars suspension was not faulty.Anyway you should of gotten a picture of it before they filled it since now they can just say it was not deep enough to warrant compensation and your suspension was faulty previously.
Scum bags they are.
To have a case you need to find out about their inspection routine (in theory and in reality) and, if possible, were there any other coomplaints about that stretch of road.
If there were previous complaints and they had failed to fix the road - then you will get compensation.
However if they assessed the road say 6 months earlier and there was no problem then, and no complaints since then they cannot reasonably have been expected to know about and fix the hole.
Info on the inspection regime ought to be easy to get.
Maybe a FOI request for the details of actual inspections and any complaints?
If there were previous complaints and they had failed to fix the road - then you will get compensation.
However if they assessed the road say 6 months earlier and there was no problem then, and no complaints since then they cannot reasonably have been expected to know about and fix the hole.
Info on the inspection regime ought to be easy to get.
Maybe a FOI request for the details of actual inspections and any complaints?
How long had the hole been there?
Had it been reported to the council?
Had they delayed in fixing the hole?
Prove that the hole was there for some time - weeks at least - and that the council knew about it. Then prove they delayed the process of fixing the hole.
Bingo, they might have been negligent and you might have a case.
Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Negligence is the key I think.
Had it been reported to the council?
Had they delayed in fixing the hole?
Prove that the hole was there for some time - weeks at least - and that the council knew about it. Then prove they delayed the process of fixing the hole.
Bingo, they might have been negligent and you might have a case.
Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. Negligence is the key I think.
You should have included a photo of said pot-hole with a copy of a daily newspaper in the photo to prove the date.
Without proof of date or independant witnesses I suspect you're stiffed.
But good luck anyway. They'll try it on for ages hoping you'll give up.
I had an accident years ago on my motorbike where the council re-surfaced the road between me going to work and returning home at night. No problem with the resurfacing, except it was with the loose grit they use, the change of surface happened on the brow of a hill, which also co-incided with a bend. They also forgot to put out any roadworks signs of any sort. Result was one motorbike and rider going over the hedge into the field, broken collarbone and bike. When I got out of A&E I went with a friend with a copy of that days paper and took photos showing all said details, including, as luck would have it, a car on opposite lock due to the amount of grit still on the road!
That took 18 months to finally settle.
Without proof of date or independant witnesses I suspect you're stiffed.
But good luck anyway. They'll try it on for ages hoping you'll give up.
I had an accident years ago on my motorbike where the council re-surfaced the road between me going to work and returning home at night. No problem with the resurfacing, except it was with the loose grit they use, the change of surface happened on the brow of a hill, which also co-incided with a bend. They also forgot to put out any roadworks signs of any sort. Result was one motorbike and rider going over the hedge into the field, broken collarbone and bike. When I got out of A&E I went with a friend with a copy of that days paper and took photos showing all said details, including, as luck would have it, a car on opposite lock due to the amount of grit still on the road!
That took 18 months to finally settle.
The hole had been there for a while - it was a man-hole lid which had recessed in the tarmac.
The manhole was lifted 3 months after my original complaint.
Their checking procedure on that stretch of road (with it been a main road) is confirmed as monthly.
I'm more annoyed that they said one thing, then changed their defence to another....a law unto themselves me thinks!
The manhole was lifted 3 months after my original complaint.
Their checking procedure on that stretch of road (with it been a main road) is confirmed as monthly.
I'm more annoyed that they said one thing, then changed their defence to another....a law unto themselves me thinks!
Edited by JCB123 on Friday 7th August 13:46
www.potholes.co.uk
You need to show that they failed to follow the correct procedure for inspection and repair. If it was on a main road then they generally have to effect a repair within 24 hours; however, if the last inspection didn't reveal a problem and the inspection schedule was adhered to, they may have a defence.
You need to show that they failed to follow the correct procedure for inspection and repair. If it was on a main road then they generally have to effect a repair within 24 hours; however, if the last inspection didn't reveal a problem and the inspection schedule was adhered to, they may have a defence.
SJobson said:
....they may have a defence.
Agreed, they may have a defence, but you need to stick to one defence surely?Are they going to choose "the monthly inspections didn't pick up any pot-holes, so there wasn't a problem"
or do they want to choose "actually, we found a problem, but we've fixed it, so there!
"If the pothole was so huge why didn't you see it and avoid it? Anyway what the insurer's are saying is that the council will inspect the road at regular intervals and carry out repairs as necessary. They are saying the council hasn't been negligent in the roads upkeep so thefore will not be paying you money. The fact the council fixed the pothole is proof that road is well maintained. The fact a pothole exists is not proof of negligence on the councils part as its quite possible for a deep pothole to develop in a day or two.
If you feel they have been negligent then you of course have every right to persue them through the courts. You would have to prove that the councils inspectors failed to spot the pothole on an inspection or spotted it and failed to repair it in a timely fashion. Alternatively you could try to argue that the inspection were not carried out frequently enough.
If you feel they have been negligent then you of course have every right to persue them through the courts. You would have to prove that the councils inspectors failed to spot the pothole on an inspection or spotted it and failed to repair it in a timely fashion. Alternatively you could try to argue that the inspection were not carried out frequently enough.
I didn't see the pothole becuase I was deep in conversation on my mobile phone whilst trying to read a map - OK?
A few facts : -
The incident occured and was reported in February.
Intial reply from insurers was in March.
Pothole was rectified in July.
If the councils inspections were adequate, it shouldn't have taken them 3-4 months to sort it?!
A few facts : -
The incident occured and was reported in February.
Intial reply from insurers was in March.
Pothole was rectified in July.
If the councils inspections were adequate, it shouldn't have taken them 3-4 months to sort it?!
JCB123 said:
SJobson said:
....they may have a defence.
Agreed, they may have a defence, but you need to stick to one defence surely?Are they going to choose "the monthly inspections didn't pick up any pot-holes, so there wasn't a problem"
or do they want to choose "actually, we found a problem, but we've fixed it, so there!
"There have been 2 sensible posts here. Hou need to find out what their inspection regime is, and when that road was last inspected. If it's too long ago, you have a claim. If they found a problem but ignored it, you have a claim. If they've followed procedures, and found no problem, you don't.
Anything deeper than 40mm requires immediate attention.
However faulty ironwork may be the Utility Company's problem and not Highways.
They will try the old chesnut - they were not aware of the defect.
Was it marked with any spray paint indicating someone has noted it for remedial action?
There are a number of independant Highway Engineers who can advise and prepare the correct paperwork
for making a claim under the relevant Highway Act.
I claimed for damaged HGV truck mirrors due to over hanging branch. Paid in Full
An a claim for car tyre damage & alignment after passing over severe hole in the road. Paid in full
If I avoided both would have strayed into oncomming traffic - not good.
However faulty ironwork may be the Utility Company's problem and not Highways.
They will try the old chesnut - they were not aware of the defect.
Was it marked with any spray paint indicating someone has noted it for remedial action?
There are a number of independant Highway Engineers who can advise and prepare the correct paperwork
for making a claim under the relevant Highway Act.
I claimed for damaged HGV truck mirrors due to over hanging branch. Paid in Full
An a claim for car tyre damage & alignment after passing over severe hole in the road. Paid in full
If I avoided both would have strayed into oncomming traffic - not good.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff