Potholes & claims, legal precedent?
Discussion
Judges said ‘defects which represent an immediate or imminent hazard’ should be ‘corrected or made safe’ at the time of the inspection. They added: ‘Repairs of a permanent or temporary nature should be carried out as soon as possible, and in any case within a period of 24 hours. Permanent repairs should be carried out within 28 days.’Roger Lawson, of the Association of British Drivers, said West Sussex Council should have fixed the pothole in Mr Thorp’s case ‘as soon as possible’. ‘If it’s left for weeks, that’s not good enough,’ he insisted.
Luke Bosdet, of the AA, added: ‘If it’s a known pothole and a vehicle is damaged by it, councils should pay compensation. The fact the council has scheduled a repair is no basis for defence.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609185/C...
Luke Bosdet, of the AA, added: ‘If it’s a known pothole and a vehicle is damaged by it, councils should pay compensation. The fact the council has scheduled a repair is no basis for defence.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6609185/C...
Not small claims court
"A lawyer has won a battle with his council over pothole damage in a case which could help thousands of other motorists.
Clive Thorp, 68, argued that recent case law means councils must make temporary repairs within 24 hours of becoming aware of damage.
He had used a Court of Appeal judgment from 2017, covering the case of a jogger who sued Barnsley council in Yorkshire after it denied responsibility for ankle damage caused by a pothole."
Posted link to the article for clarity.
"A lawyer has won a battle with his council over pothole damage in a case which could help thousands of other motorists.
Clive Thorp, 68, argued that recent case law means councils must make temporary repairs within 24 hours of becoming aware of damage.
He had used a Court of Appeal judgment from 2017, covering the case of a jogger who sued Barnsley council in Yorkshire after it denied responsibility for ankle damage caused by a pothole."
Posted link to the article for clarity.
The Court of Appeal decision (which is what really matters) is available here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/36.ht...
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/36.ht...
Yes, but it’s impossible to know if that case would actually have affected the outcome, because it never went to court.
The Daily Mail is making out like it was some big victory based on that ruling, it’s total click bait - although given the source that’s probably a redundant statement because that pretty much covers everything they ever put out.
The council folded before it went to court. Sure, it could be because of legal advice they’d lose, or it could be because they looked at their duty over how they spend public money and decided to give the guy his money to make it go away rather than incur far higher legal bills. Who knows. Happy to be corrected by one of our resident legal beagles, but I struggle to see how it proves anything with regard to whether that appeal court ruling was applicable to this case or not.
The Daily Mail is making out like it was some big victory based on that ruling, it’s total click bait - although given the source that’s probably a redundant statement because that pretty much covers everything they ever put out.
The council folded before it went to court. Sure, it could be because of legal advice they’d lose, or it could be because they looked at their duty over how they spend public money and decided to give the guy his money to make it go away rather than incur far higher legal bills. Who knows. Happy to be corrected by one of our resident legal beagles, but I struggle to see how it proves anything with regard to whether that appeal court ruling was applicable to this case or not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff