Pothole - new sump

[ORLED]

Drove slowly down a country lane 10 April on a dark wet evening. Clunk - there was a water filled hidden pot hole >10 cms deep. Checked wheel / tyre - no problem. Next day noticed oil leak from sump, luckily before driving away from home. Off to dealer for new sump, oil and labour £534.
Reported pot hole and submitted claim to Council, waited 3 months for response from insurance company acting on behalf of council, stating they did not feel responsible as road was inspected twice per year:

"Having checked our client's records we note that they have in place a system of routine highway inspections. The road in question is routinely inspected twice a year in addition to ad-hoc inspections been carried out in between their routine inspections when reports/complaints of defects are made.
When the area was last routinely inspected on the 09/02/2018, prior to your incident, the defect in question was either not apparent or actionable at that time and no reports/complaints of the specific defect in question were made to our client prior to your incident. In support of this we attach relevant documents pertaining to the Highways inspections.
Section 58 of the Highways act deals with our client's obligations to carry out inspections of the highway taking into account various considerations such as frequency of use, character and location. If our clients can demonstrate that they do operate a valid and reasonable inspection system, and that when a location was last inspected the defect in question was not present or actionable and no reports/complaints regarding the defect in question are received by our client prior to an incident, then they will be able to put forward a defence to a claim of this nature.
Accordingly our client has not acted negligently nor are they in breach of their statutory obligations and whilst we sympathise, we regret we are unable to offer any compensation.
However if you still wish to pursue your claim, going forward, we advise you of your rights to seek independent legal advice on your case, if you wish to do so. This can be obtained free from the Citizens Advice Bureau. You can also pursue your claim through the small claims court. If you choose to take the matter through the small claims court please issue proceedings against our client and serve them on our client direct."

Subsequent research suggests there have been many reports of problems on this lane with occasional repairs. Photos show evidence of previous repairs.
Appears this is the usual response of most councils to try and get rid of 95% claims without further action.
Any thoughts as to success of pursuing a claim any further?
Has anybody had success? Worth specialist motoring solicitor or small claims court?[url]

[PaulD86]

While annoying for you, the insurers response is pretty much on the money. If the authority have acted in accordance with their own procedure that meets with their legal obligation and the code of practice (well maintained highways or well managed highways infrastructure - the latter being the newer but not required until the 28th of October this year) then they will have a good defense in court. If there had been a report of the specific pothole you know to have done the damage and they did not repair it within the timescales that they should have set out in their own policy/manual (these are usually published on their website somewhere - usually referred to as roads safety inspection policy or similar) then you may have grounds for a claim. To say "it must have happened on this road" will not be good enough. Probably not what you want to hear, but based on actually working knowledge of this area.

[Pothole]

Gotcha!

[Alucidnation]

Looks like most people managed to drive around it.

[ORLED]

Yes pic taken few days later when back in area and could see in daylight. They had driven around it for couple days when they could see. The offending pothole was on left of picture not the front one on right

[PaulD86]

ORLED said:

Yes pic taken few days later when back in area and could see in daylight. They had driven around it for couple days when they could see. The offending pothole was on left of picture not the front one on right

Do you mean the council had driven round/inspected it? If so they should have auctioned it. Timescales should be in their documentation which can usually be found on their websites with some digging.

[S100HP]

Playing devils advocate, how fast were you going and how low is your car. It doesn't look "that" bad.

[Eddieslofart]

Pothole said:

Gotcha!

[syl]

You need to know exactly what their records show at the last inspection and if it's likely that the road could have deteriorated to such a state in the interval between then and your damage. You could consider a report from an expert.

After that, small claims action is cheap and if they don't turn up, you win. I'd be inclined to try it on.

[Ardennes92]

It is a c**p system that says the first person to come across it can swivel but so long as they report it, then any followers can claim, so long as the council have buried their heads in the hole as usual

[ORLED]

Probably 20 mph. Wheel in pothole not damaged as low speed,taht just sump bottomed out on central part of road. Golf R on official VW 17" winter rims / tyres, so higher than standard spec car which would have been on 18" or 19". Further pics for clarification. Have requested inspection records.

[S100HP]

Wow, that's pretty awful

[ORLED]

[oakdale]

ORLED said:

Nice wellies, proper PH kit.

[PaulD86]

That would very definitely class as a safety defect. Assuming the routine safety inspections were done on time then it would likely come done to whether the authority had been made aware of that specific defect and if so whether they had failed to repair it within the timelines set out in their procedures. That said, playing devils advocate, in daylight at 20 that doesn't look like the hardest of defects to avoid.

[anonymous-user]

ORLED said:

Probably 20 mph. Wheel in pothole not damaged as low speed,taht just sump bottomed out on central part of road. Golf R on official VW 17" winter rims / tyres, so higher than standard spec car which would have been on 18" or 19". Further pics for clarification. Have requested inspection records.

If you are using ‘official’ winter tyres there’ll be no difference in ride height. The overall diameter of the wheel/tyre will be the same with 17”/18”/19”.

[ORLED]

PaulD86 said:

That would very definitely class as a safety defect. Assuming the routine safety inspections were done on time then it would likely come done to whether the authority had been made aware of that specific defect and if so whether they had failed to repair it within the timelines set out in their procedures. That said, playing devils advocate, in daylight at 20 that doesn't look like the hardest of defects to avoid.

As you will have read in original post - it was dark, night, raining, pretty wet & water filling potholes

[PaulD86]

ORLED said:

As you will have read in original post - it was dark, night, raining, pretty wet & water filling potholes

Sorry, had this and another thread mixed up when I wrote the last post. Advice stands though. Try and establish if it had been reported and try and establish what the authorities response times should be on such reports/defects and establish if these were missed. If so you have a decent chance at a successful claim.

[ericmcn]

that road is f***** - i would not drive anything on it

[mac96]

It’s really hard to believe that road was in a good state of repair on 9/2/18. Looks like long term neglect with perhaps occasional hole filling. In which case surely damage to vehicles would be foreseeable?