Odds of success claiming for a pothole-damaged tyre?

[Funk]

Driving back from visiting family recently I hit an absolute crater of a pothole that was pretty much invisible and arrived quickly at NSL (unlit B-road). The kind of bang that makes you duck in the car... Nothing felt untoward, the car's TPMS reported no loss of pressure so made it home.

Inspection this morning shows the tyre hasn't escaped without damage unfortunately:



Although the car is on a maintenance package including tyres, this doesn't include sidewall damage (for this very reason no doubt) so I'll have to cough for a replacement. Couple of questions though if anyone can help:

1) The car's done 4k - will there be any issues with just replacing a single tyre on this mileage or is it advisable to replace both on the same axle (hoping the former rather than the latter..!)

2) Given the size of the pothole it's not something that will have happened overnight; what are the chances of recovering this cost from the council and does anyone have any tips to improve the odds? The council responsible is West Sussex if that helps.

I've asked my brother if he can take some photos in daylight although I'm thinking about heading up there once the replacement tyre is fitted to do so myself - it'll mean I can get the pictures I think I'll need as well as hopefully being able to get some measurements if possible.

Anyone using the B2036 south-bound from the Maidenbower roundabout and prior to the Cowdray Arms would do well to keep their eyes peeled and wits about them...

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 27th April 22:28

[mario64]

At 4k miles I'd probably just change the one tyre. What's the tread depth on the other side?

I think for potholes it depends on if it's already been reported? Although I'm not an expert and have never made a claim.

[NuvolAscaRina]

I'd just replace the 1 tyre , assuming the owner's manual has no dire warnings of mis matched tyres .

[Funk]

mario64 said:

At 4k miles I'd probably just change the one tyre. What's the tread depth on the other side?

I think for potholes it depends on if it's already been reported? Although I'm not an expert and have never made a claim.

Funnily enough have the exact info from a 'complimentary visual inspection' by BMW for something else unrelated a couple of weeks back so I can give an unusually-specific answer!

Check NSF Tyre
Tyre Tread Reading (Inner) (5mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Middle) (6mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Outer) (5mm)
Check OSF Tyre - -
Tyre Tread Reading (Inner) (5mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Middle) (6mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Outer) (5mm)
Check OSR Tyre - -
Tyre Tread Reading (Inner) (5mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Middle) (6mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Outer) (5mm)
Check NSR Tyre - -
Tyre Tread Reading (Inner) (5mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Middle) (6mm) : Tyre Tread Reading (Outer) (5mm)

I've had a look at the WSCC pothole page and there is a report of one recently but I'm not sure whether it corresponds to the location mine took the hit. I need to take pics and get proper geo-location from it. The tricky part is that the road doesn't really have anywhere that I can see to pull over on that section and the last thing I want is to be the cause of an incident...

Council site said:

Balcombe Road, Worth, RH10 7RZ

West Sussex Crawley Down and Turners Hill Ward

April 16, 2021

Pothole problem with road

3165650

Description:

"big pothole in the road, has been there 7/8 weeks, coming from crawley towards balcombe, almost at the brow of the hill before you get to the Cowdray Arms, very near a major repair you had to do last year (but not the same repair)"

Latest Report Update
Enquiry closed : Thank you for your report. We have arranged for the Local Highway Steward to visit the site, during which they will raise any repair works in accordance with the County Councils Safety Plus Policy. https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/mai... Many thanks WSCC

If it's the same one then they have been aware of it since at least the 16th and haven't yet repaired it...

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 27th April 22:26

[jonwm]

I hit a huge pothole in the dark that scrapped 2 tyres, I reported on the council web page and they fixed it straight away, I put a claim in and it was rejected as they couldn't be responsible for the weather damaging the road and it was checked in April (this happened in September) and all was fine.

I had photos before and after and vat receipt for £380. They mentioned frost and how many miles of road they look after.

It seems difficult to claim nowadays.

[Tin Hat]

I hit a mahoosive pothole on the M25 in January, wiped out the front offside tyre.

I complained, filled in an application form, waited 89 of the 90 day period for a decision and they agreed last Friday to reimburse me the £222.00 for the replacement tyre ( they need ‘up to 28 days’ to achieve that final feat )

[Funk]

Seems a bit of a mixed bag in terms of likelihood of reimbursement then. Looks like the tyre's around £260ish. I'm just hoping that I don't find out the rim's cracked when the tyre's removed, that would make an already expensive issue into something I don't even want to contemplate.

[davek_964]

A few years ago, I hit a pothole which blew two tyres and damaged both wheels.

Council passed it straight to their "road maintenance company" - they were slow (went over the allowed time they're supposed to have to resolve it) - but paid with no argument.

[PaulD86]

Contact the LA and tell them you wish to make a claim. Most will send you a claim pack with forms where you fill in what you're claiming for and asking for info on the location and, ideally, images of the defect you hit. Complete the forms and return them. Almost certainly the LA will pass this staight to their insurers who will ask the LA for details of when the road was inspected, if they had had reports of the defects etc. You DO NOT need to make a freedom of information request on inspection records etc. People love to tell you to do this but more often than not it is unnecessary and a waste of everyones time, plus public finances that would be better spend repairing the roads - the amount of time my team has spent responding to FOIs which were pointless could have paid for hundreds of pothole repairs.

The insurer will make a decision on whether they pay. This will be based on their opinion of whether the claim could be defended in court. If they reject the claim you can ask why and if you think this is incorrect you could fight it. At this point an FOI may be relevant.

If the road was inspected within the timescale that it should have been and if teh LA had not been made aware of the defect, there is a good chance they will reject the claim. If they knew about the defect and did not fix within timescale, or if the road was outside it's inspection tollerance then you have a reasonable chance of sucess.

Let us know how you get on.

[Glosphil]

I attended a talk by a representative of Gloucestershire Highways Dept & he was boosting that Gloucestershire reject a higher proportion of claims for damage due to damage from potholes than almost any other council.
A couple of weeks ago I hit a pothole that damaged both tyre & wheel beyound repair. The pothole can be clearly seen on Google StreetView from October 2019. Let's see how my claim goes.

[Funk]

PaulD86 said:

Contact the LA and tell them you wish to make a claim. Most will send you a claim pack with forms where you fill in what you're claiming for and asking for info on the location and, ideally, images of the defect you hit. Complete the forms and return them. Almost certainly the LA will pass this staight to their insurers who will ask the LA for details of when the road was inspected, if they had had reports of the defects etc. You DO NOT need to make a freedom of information request on inspection records etc. People love to tell you to do this but more often than not it is unnecessary and a waste of everyones time, plus public finances that would be better spend repairing the roads - the amount of time my team has spent responding to FOIs which were pointless could have paid for hundreds of pothole repairs.

The insurer will make a decision on whether they pay. This will be based on their opinion of whether the claim could be defended in court. If they reject the claim you can ask why and if you think this is incorrect you could fight it. At this point an FOI may be relevant.

If the road was inspected within the timescale that it should have been and if teh LA had not been made aware of the defect, there is a good chance they will reject the claim. If they knew about the defect and did not fix within timescale, or if the road was outside it's inspection tollerance then you have a reasonable chance of sucess.

Let us know how you get on.

Thanks for this, very helpful info. IF it's the one I think it is (this one: https://love.westsussex.gov.uk/reports/report/6734... what sort of timeframe would they have been expected to repair it in? Even the report notes that it'd been there for 7-8 weeks already and presumably getting worse in that time.

I'm off to try and get the tyre replaced today and will drive back up to where the pothole is to get photos if I can.

[journeymanpro]

did you not drive over something sharp that punctured the tyre in an irrepairable location???.....

[PaulD86]

Funk said:

Thanks for this, very helpful info. IF it's the one I think it is (this one: https://love.westsussex.gov.uk/reports/report/6734... what sort of timeframe would they have been expected to repair it in? Even the report notes that it'd been there for 7-8 weeks already and presumably getting worse in that time.

I'm off to try and get the tyre replaced today and will drive back up to where the pothole is to get photos if I can.

https://foi.infreemation.co.uk/westsussex/files/274880/274880_2.pdf

Pages 6-14 give you the info you need.

Or if you want some more info....

The link doesn't seem to work, but the answer to your question is slightly complicated.

National guidance on such things is found in the Well Managed Highway Infrastructure code of practice - https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/11915/well-managed_h...
Previous codes of practice had suggested intervention levels and responses, however the new code asks authorities to take a risk based approach. Essentially consider how likely a risk is and how severe it's consequences will be. Each authority should document it's rationale.

When I wrote a response procedure the approach was that a defect, once reported or discovered during a routine inspection, would be categorised, The top category was danger at a level that the defect cannot be left unattended for risk to life (exposed electrical cables, for instance). Then there were a number of lower categories with response times from "within a day" to 4 weeks, depending on severity.

The authority should assign a response time according to the risk profile of the defect. There are no hard and fast rules on this and different authorities have different response times. Consideration should be given to the likes of the speed limit of the road, how busy it is, if the defect is in wheel tracks, if it has sharp edges etc etc. But basically the point is that a pothole in a 20mph cul-de-sac does not need to be repaired with the same urgency as one the same size on a busy 60mph A-road.


I hope that's helpful.

My job involves trying to reduce sucessful claims so I have a bias, however I am also a petrolhead through and through and love driving and believe that where an authority has been neglegent, they should pay for repairs. I see some claims where I think immediately we should pay and I see others where the claimaint is completely taking the mick. I've had to deal with a claim where someone drive through 2 road closed signs, found the road to be closed (surprise!) and reversed into a post truing to come back. They tried to claim against us as they said the signs were unclear so it was our fault they were on the road and had to turn.... Sadly the ridiculous claims are the majority.

[PaulD86]

PaulD86 said:

https://foi.infreemation.co.uk/westsussex/files/27...

Pages 6-14 give you the info you need.

Or if you want some more info....

The link doesn't seem to work, but the answer to your question is slightly complicated.

National guidance on such things is found in the Well Managed Highway Infrastructure code of practice - https://www.ciht.org.uk/media/11915/well-managed_h...
Previous codes of practice had suggested intervention levels and responses, however the new code asks authorities to take a risk based approach. Essentially consider how likely a risk is and how severe it's consequences will be. Each authority should document it's rationale.

When I wrote a response procedure the approach was that a defect, once reported or discovered during a routine inspection, would be categorised, The top category was danger at a level that the defect cannot be left unattended for risk to life (exposed electrical cables, for instance). Then there were a number of lower categories with response times from "within a day" to 4 weeks, depending on severity.

The authority should assign a response time according to the risk profile of the defect. There are no hard and fast rules on this and different authorities have different response times. Consideration should be given to the likes of the speed limit of the road, how busy it is, if the defect is in wheel tracks, if it has sharp edges etc etc. But basically the point is that a pothole in a 20mph cul-de-sac does not need to be repaired with the same urgency as one the same size on a busy 60mph A-road.


I hope that's helpful.

My job involves trying to reduce sucessful claims so I have a bias, however I am also a petrolhead through and through and love driving and believe that where an authority has been neglegent, they should pay for repairs. I see some claims where I think immediately we should pay and I see others where the claimaint is completely taking the mick. I've had to deal with a claim where someone drive through 2 road closed signs, found the road to be closed (surprise!) and reversed into a post turning to come back. They tried to claim against us as they said the signs were unclear so it was our fault they were on the road and had to turn.... Sadly the ridiculous claims are the majority.

[essayer]

PaulD86 said:

Contact the LA and tell them you wish to make a claim. Most will send you a claim pack with forms where you fill in what you're claiming for and asking for info on the location and, ideally, images of the defect you hit. Complete the forms and return them. Almost certainly the LA will pass this staight to their insurers who will ask the LA for details of when the road was inspected, if they had had reports of the defects etc. You DO NOT need to make a freedom of information request on inspection records etc. People love to tell you to do this but more often than not it is unnecessary and a waste of everyones time, plus public finances that would be better spend repairing the roads - the amount of time my team has spent responding to FOIs which were pointless could have paid for hundreds of pothole repairs.

My council rejected my claim completely incorrectly and only reversed their position when I presented them with the information from a FOI request

Until councils make their road repair records public, always do a FOI

[PaulD86]

essayer said:

PaulD86 said:

Contact the LA and tell them you wish to make a claim. Most will send you a claim pack with forms where you fill in what you're claiming for and asking for info on the location and, ideally, images of the defect you hit. Complete the forms and return them. Almost certainly the LA will pass this staight to their insurers who will ask the LA for details of when the road was inspected, if they had had reports of the defects etc. You DO NOT need to make a freedom of information request on inspection records etc. People love to tell you to do this but more often than not it is unnecessary and a waste of everyones time, plus public finances that would be better spend repairing the roads - the amount of time my team has spent responding to FOIs which were pointless could have paid for hundreds of pothole repairs.

My council rejected my claim completely incorrectly and only reversed their position when I presented them with the information from a FOI request

Until councils make their road repair records public, always do a FOI

I'm entirely sure mistakes are made. As I said, make the claim first and if it fails then consider the FOI. You do not need to FOI as a first course of action as I said. The "nuclear" option does not need to be the first one. I'm sure if you bought a defective product your first course of action would be to see if the retailer would sort the problem, not to sue them.

[randlemarcus]

PaulD86 said:

I'm entirely sure mistakes are made. As I said, make the claim first and if it fails then consider the FOI. You do not need to FOI as a first course of action as I said. The "nuclear" option does not need to be the first one. I'm sure if you bought a defective product your first course of action would be to see if the retailer would sort the problem, not to sue them.

And at the same time, you'd make sure you knew where the receipt was, and take it out of the big pile of receipts. No difference FOI requests are NOT suing, it's just part and parcel of the process. Personally, if I was Dictator for the Day, I'd have a one year moratorium on being able to claim for damage, during which time the public sector have to get everything back to standards, and on the anniversary, you guys publish EVERYTHING, and damage follows a lapse in your process.

[Four Litre]

Funk said:

Driving back from visiting family recently I hit an absolute crater of a pothole that was pretty much invisible and arrived quickly at NSL (unlit B-road). The kind of bang that makes you duck in the car... Nothing felt untoward, the car's TPMS reported no loss of pressure so made it home.

Inspection this morning shows the tyre hasn't escaped without damage unfortunately:



Although the car is on a maintenance package including tyres, this doesn't include sidewall damage (for this very reason no doubt) so I'll have to cough for a replacement. Couple of questions though if anyone can help:

1) The car's done 4k - will there be any issues with just replacing a single tyre on this mileage or is it advisable to replace both on the same axle (hoping the former rather than the latter..!)

2) Given the size of the pothole it's not something that will have happened overnight; what are the chances of recovering this cost from the council and does anyone have any tips to improve the odds? The council responsible is West Sussex if that helps.

I've asked my brother if he can take some photos in daylight although I'm thinking about heading up there once the replacement tyre is fitted to do so myself - it'll mean I can get the pictures I think I'll need as well as hopefully being able to get some measurements if possible.

Anyone using the B2036 south-bound from the Maidenbower roundabout and prior to the Cowdray Arms would do well to keep their eyes peeled and wits about them...

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 27th April 22:28

Find one that's already been reported.....there's plenty to chose from!

[PaulD86]

randlemarcus said:

PaulD86 said:

I'm entirely sure mistakes are made. As I said, make the claim first and if it fails then consider the FOI. You do not need to FOI as a first course of action as I said. The "nuclear" option does not need to be the first one. I'm sure if you bought a defective product your first course of action would be to see if the retailer would sort the problem, not to sue them.

And at the same time, you'd make sure you knew where the receipt was, and take it out of the big pile of receipts. No difference FOI requests are NOT suing, it's just part and parcel of the process. Personally, if I was Dictator for the Day, I'd have a one year moratorium on being able to claim for damage, during which time the public sector have to get everything back to standards, and on the anniversary, you guys publish EVERYTHING, and damage follows a lapse in your process.

Inspection and repair records are kept long enough they won’t disappear if you don't do an immediate FOI.
I didn't say FOI requests are suing. My point was simply that starting with a claim and escalating things if actually needed is a more sensible course of action.
If you knew the amount of money wasted on pointless FOIs each year you might adjust your opinion. Unfortunately, I do know how much of my staff's time is wasted on these and its depressing stuff. I very much believe in freedom of information, however the ability to FOI is grossly misused. Anyway, the point is this. Most claims do not require any FOI. If everyone were to make an FOI when the claimed it would waste a huge amount of time and money which, I'm sure you will agree, would be better spent actually mending the roads.
But what do I know - this stuff is only my job...

And please, if anyone is going to make an FOI, take the time to figure out what you actually need to ask because most people don't even get that right.

[Funk]

Thanks for all the input folks. New tyre arrived and was fitted today and I went back up to the location of the pothole to get photos - West Sussex CC require you to put in a report of the pothole yourself (even if already reported) prior to submitting a claim. Here's the offending bd, definitely been there a while!






As you can see, it's almost invisible as you crest the brow, at 23:30 at night I had no chance of seeing it at 60mph...

To WSCC's credit there's a section on the claim process that asks for any other incurred costs - I'm on annual leave this week so it hasn't impacted me on getting to/from work or anything but as I had to make the 60-mile round trip to take pics today I've asked them for the HMRC mileage (about £25) as I wouldn't have been going back up there today for any other reason. See if they cough up for it on top of the tyre...or neither!