Pothole payup refused

[trackerjack]

This May I hit a pothole when forced to the side of the road by oncoming traffic.
The pothole ruined alloy and ripped tyre instantly deflating.
I had a witness, I took accurate pictures and informed West Sussex Council and set out to claim by filling in their very lengthy claim form (meant to discourage).
Took opportunity to inform them of another pothole near the one mentioned at the same time.
Finally they have refused to pay up on the grounds that they had inspected the road 24 days previous and found no defects, therefore they are not negligent.
However I pictured the other hole too and they did not repair this until 4 months later.
Conclusion is they are negligent because they look at a road and do nothing.
Should I just accept that as well as all other things to watch for we now have to put up with dangerous roads?

[chris182]

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

[james280779]

trackerjack said:

This May I hit a pothole when forced to the side of the road by oncoming traffic.
The pothole ruined alloy and ripped tyre instantly deflating.
I had a witness, I took accurate pictures and informed West Sussex Council and set out to claim by filling in their very lengthy claim form (meant to discourage).
Took opportunity to inform them of another pothole near the one mentioned at the same time.
Finally they have refused to pay up on the grounds that they had inspected the road 24 days previous and found no defects, therefore they are not negligent.
However I pictured the other hole too and they did not repair this until 4 months later.
Conclusion is they are negligent because they look at a road and do nothing.
Should I just accept that as well as all other things to watch for we now have to put up with dangerous roads?

commence small claims, I had something similar with an exhaust - the speed bump was higher than legally allowed (by 1/3) and tore the exhaust off my TVR. They stated they sub contracted the work out so not responsible. Its their road so they are and for all work done on it. I commenced action and they paid.

A year later same car, was parked at carpark, they cut grass and mower didnt have stone guards- Showered my car with stones smashing two lamps and covering with stone chips as well as about a tonne of grass (it had recently been completely resprayed). Again they denied responsibility and commenced small claims and they paid out.

[edo]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

Your village is calling for you.

OP. Standard response is to reject first claim. Reject their offer and push again.

[Drek]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

This has got to be one of the most stupid posts on this site and there's some stiff competition.

[chris182]

To avoid repeating the same points again: Previous discussion on this exact topic

There seems a pretty even split between those that think one should look where one is going and those that think someone else should be liable for the damage when they drive into a stationary obstacle.

[whoami]

Drek said:

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

This has got to be one of the most stupid posts on this site and there's some stiff competition.

It's certainly right up there...

[turboteeth]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

I hope you never get a pot hole puncture in your Kia Sedona! That would be a shame

[turboteeth]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

I hope you never get a pot hole puncture in your Kia Sedona! That would be a shame

[turboteeth]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

I hope you never get a pot hole puncture in your Kia Sedona! That would be a shame

[turboteeth]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

I hope you never get a pot hole puncture in your Kia Sedona! That would be a shame

[rb5er]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

I`m sure this is a windup. Surely everyone knows the roads are "meant" to be fit for purpose and safe.

[turboteeth]

Gosh duplicate posting - I am sorry

[mph999]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

The first word I thought of when I read this would get me instantly banned ...

It's not possible to always avoid potholes, for starters, if filled with water they just look like a puddle, at night they're harder to see.

To drive properly and safely you need to be looking all around, near/ far, behind and so on, and whilst doing this you're not going to be able to work out the 'depth' of every hole you see.

Councils should take responsibility, if the roads were maintained properly, repairs were done correctly many holes wouldn't appear in the first place.

[Emeritus]

OP you need to push again and be prepared to take them to court.

It is in the councils interest to deny your claim (certainly at first) if everyone thought it was easy to claim then everybody would claim.

Lol @ a member of PH calling alloy wheels a fashion item.

[cptsideways]

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

Are you Motability by any chance, with a free car & road tax? I pay my road taxes (lots of it) & I expect our roads to be maintained to a respectable standard. Having very nearly had a friend killed whilst riding a bike at night who came off due to a substantial pothole it is not something I except as normal or acceptable.

[james280779]

Its becoming even tougher to spot the pot holes now the street lights have been turned off.

[mygoldfishbowl]

edo said:

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

Your village is calling for you.

OP. Standard response is to reject first claim. Reject their offer and push again.

Yes but no.. Cars are supplied with the stupid low profile tyres & alloy wheels which the majority don't need.

I replaced my 17 inch alloys with 15 inch steels & appropriately larger profile tyres so much less problems with pot holes.

He does have a point.

[mygoldfishbowl]

cptsideways said:

chris182 said:

Good. There is no reason the taxpayer should subsidise peoples fashion choices with regards to unsuitable wheels. If you don't want to break them, watch where you are driving or get more durable wheels and tyres with proper sidewalls.

Are you Motability by any chance, with a free car & road tax? I pay my road taxes (lots of it) & I expect our roads to be maintained to a respectable standard. Having very nearly had a friend killed whilst riding a bike at night who came off due to a substantial pothole it is not something I except as normal or acceptable.

But there we are.. The roads are full of potholes, acceptable or not.

[405dogvan]

I hover in the 'watch where you're driving or buy a more practical car' camp most of the time, but I wasn't there so I'm not going to judge the OP in this case

One thing tho - if the pothole wasn't in the main carriageway (e.g. it was near or in the gutter) they probably have a case worth defending, because you're not supposed to drive in the gutter and your being there was your/the other drivers fault and not theirs - they can 'sow doubt' and that's all they have to do.

If it's in the main part of the road tho, I'd file with Small Claims - odds are they'll make an offer on receipt of the summons and if they don't, you get your day in court (tho even if you win, you may have to shell for bailiffs to get anything out of them).

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

Just remember that they get to choose the court which hears the case and they could choose one 300miles from you 'for sts and giggles'