Highwayman agency denying liability for damage to mate's car
Discussion
The highway agency are denying liability for damage to my friend's car as a result of his car travelling over a broken surface on the m1. The story was reported in the watford observer where it was said that police were alerted to a number of vehicles getting punctures on the south bound section of the m1 close to junction 5. Hertfordshire highways was called and one lane was closed to carry out repair work. The grounds for denial are that the highways agency's agent repaired and routinely inspected the road as required by law and this is their defence that is covered under statute. My question is, has anyone succesfully fought the highway agency for repair of their car in such an instance? My friend stands to lose his NCB and his insurance will probably go through the roof at renewal due to him being a young driver and his car was quite badly damaged as he was travelling at 70mph when he hit the pothole causing two of his tyres to deflate and other substantial damage. There are many claiming against the highways agency and they are all being told the same thing, that there is no liability on the highway agency's part and therefore it is the fault of the driver. I think this is terrible since we all pay road tax to ensure our roads are maintained, so these things should never happen and if they do the driver should not be to blame since the driver has no duty to repair roads.
To claim compensation from the Highways Agency, you would have to prove that they were negligent, in that they were aware of the problem and took no action to rectify it.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
M5Dave said:
To claim compensation from the Highways Agency, you would have to prove that they were negligent, in that they were aware of the problem and took no action to rectify it.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
To an unsatisfactory standard!
BliarOut said:
M5Dave said:
To claim compensation from the Highways Agency, you would have to prove that they were negligent, in that they were aware of the problem and took no action to rectify it.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
To an unsatisfactory standard!
Maybe but thats not the point. The incident took place before the repair. If I understood the OP properly. So to show negligence I reckon you have to show that the problem had been reported earlier and nothing had been done about it.
BliarOut said:
M5Dave said:
To claim compensation from the Highways Agency, you would have to prove that they were negligent, in that they were aware of the problem and took no action to rectify it.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
To an unsatisfactory standard!
Did the damage occur because the road wasn't repaired properly? From the OP I thought it was prior to the repair being carried out.
If that's the case then there may be grounds for a claim.
M5Dave said:
BliarOut said:
M5Dave said:
To claim compensation from the Highways Agency, you would have to prove that they were negligent, in that they were aware of the problem and took no action to rectify it.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
From the story you give, it appears that they've been called, made aware of the problem, and attended and carried out a repair.
To an unsatisfactory standard!
Did the damage occur because the road wasn't repaired properly? From the OP I thought it was prior to the repair being carried out.
If that's the case then there may be grounds for a claim.
Maybe there could be grounds if the agency had not performed its duty in monitoring the state of the road. Cant believe they are allowed to wait for a report from the public before taking action.
We have the incident report and it says "called to work for DEERS in live lanes. Found pothole in lane one called for rolling block and filled pothole." This was 40 minutes after my friend's incident. What I don't understand is the police had to attend the scene, if the highway agency's agent had took reasonable measures to ensure the highway was not dangerous why did the police need to attend; seems very suspicious to me.
s2art said:
Maybe there could be grounds if the agency had not performed its duty in monitoring the state of the road. Cant believe they are allowed to wait for a report from the public before taking action.
Funnily enough had a report of one of these going through court the other day. In essence, the HA (LA in this case) is responsible when it is aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the defect and failed to sign or repair. Afraid I have no online source.
Obviously it's for the court to decide whether they were aware or whether it was reasonable that they should have been.
The balance is making sure that on the one hand they do what they are supposed to, but on the other not make them liable every time that it snows on some unclassified road.
7db said:
s2art said:
Maybe there could be grounds if the agency had not performed its duty in monitoring the state of the road. Cant believe they are allowed to wait for a report from the public before taking action.
Funnily enough had a report of one of these going through court the other day. In essence, the HA (LA in this case) is responsible when it is aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the defect and failed to sign or repair. Afraid I have no online source.
Obviously it's for the court to decide whether they were aware or whether it was reasonable that they should have been.
The balance is making sure that on the one hand they do what they are supposed to, but on the other not make them liable every time that it snows on some unclassified road.
what level of court
mags high etc as i might be able to find it through expert witness resources
irm said:
7db said:
s2art said:
Maybe there could be grounds if the agency had not performed its duty in monitoring the state of the road. Cant believe they are allowed to wait for a report from the public before taking action.
Funnily enough had a report of one of these going through court the other day. In essence, the HA (LA in this case) is responsible when it is aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the defect and failed to sign or repair. Afraid I have no online source.
Obviously it's for the court to decide whether they were aware or whether it was reasonable that they should have been.
The balance is making sure that on the one hand they do what they are supposed to, but on the other not make them liable every time that it snows on some unclassified road.
what level of court
mags high etc as i might be able to find it through expert witness resources
That would be excellent if you could, it would be just the sort of thing I could do with as I prepare to do battle with the schisters at Surrey CC...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff