Hit a hole in the road, tyre damage and wheel buckled

Update.

Council have rejected any liability, full letter below.

Mini charged us £650 for the replacement alloy and tyre.

The council were responsible for the exposed roadwork, after all.

I refer to my letter dated 9 December and confirm I have completed my investigations.


I have to advise you that I do not consider that the County Council has been in breach of statutory duty on this occasion. Consequently, I do not accept that there is a liability on the Council and I cannot offef you compensation.

The site where you had your unfortunate accident is subject to monthly inspections for a Main Distributor, and at the last inspection, which was carried out on 8 November, prior to your accident, no defect was evident for the specific location you refer to. I enclose a copy of the 464 inspections carried out and 465 defects found sheets for your perusal.

In addition to routine inspections the Council responds to complaints that are received. I can confirm that the database on which the complaints are recorded has been searched and the first notification of an issue at this location was received on 21 November; an inspector ¥isited the location on 23 November and raised a work order for our Contractor to undertake repairs within a one week timescale, please refer to defect ID633843 and photograph taken by the inspector at the time copies of which are enclosed. Two further complaints were received on 25 November resulting in an inspector visiting the location and issuing a second Defect ID633860 for additional repairs to be carried out within a one day timeframe due to the gully being blocked and resetting due to a collapse, again I have provided copies of the photograph taken by the inspector on his visit to the location. I believe that the Council has acted reasonably given all of the circumstances at the time.

The reason for my decision is that whilst the Council as Highway Authority has a duty to maintain the highway that duty is not absolute. The fact that a defect exists does not automatically mean the Council is liable for damage resultant from such a defect.

The Council has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to maintain the highway and this is discharged by way of a system of inspection. Roads are inspected at a frequency stipulated in the Highway Management Plan. If an inspection programme is adhered to then this is a defence to claims such as this one. This is not an approach adopted indiscriminately by the Council but a proper way of responding to such claims having regard to Highway legislation and case law.

I appreciate that you will be disappointed with this decision, but I hope that my letter explains the reasons behind it. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.
Click to expand...

This is what my partner hit, bearing it mind it was pitch black, and there were no warning signs other than that orange paint:

D1sVy62.jpg.png
 
So they'd partially repaired the hole when the incident occurred, meaning they were aware if the condition of the road at that time.

I'd say it's reasonable to expect ongoing repairs to be suitably cordoned off if there's a hazard.
 
bainbridge said:
So they'd partially repaired the hole when the incident occurred, meaning they were aware if the condition of the road at that time.

I'd say it's reasonable to expect ongoing repairs to be suitably cordoned off if there's a hazard.
Click to expand...

I'd definately pursue further, ridiculous it wasn't cordoned off!

A couple of cones and this would never have happened.
 
Diagro said:
So.. After they repaired it, it caused damage? Yet they believe it did not??

I'd take it further mate.
Click to expand...

Essentially, yeah, this is the first stage of the repair.

This is the repair before it went bad, which obviously happened after my partner hit the above photo:

HZWUEjI.jpg.png


The timeline from the council's perspective is as follows:

  • 21st November - first notification of the issue at that location
  • 23rd November - inspector visited (ironically his surname is Cooper, I'll let you guess what my girlfriend was driving...), he raised a work order for the contractor to repair within a week, I don't know what the actual issue was, blockage perhaps?
  • 25th November - two further complaints received from the public, not us, and the same day my partner hit the "repair", also at some point on this day their inspection guys went out again to acknowledge the issue, and they raised an order for it to be properly repaired within 24 hours, unfortunately it wouldn't be fixed until after our accident
  • 26th November - repaired date.
 
bainbridge said:
So they'd partially repaired the hole when the incident occurred, meaning they were aware if the condition of the road at that time.

I'd say it's reasonable to expect ongoing repairs to be suitably cordoned off if there's a hazard.
Click to expand...

Diagro said:
So.. After they repaired it, it caused damage? Yet they believe it did not??

I'd take it further mate.
Click to expand...

2004typer said:
I'd definately pursue further, ridiculous it wasn't cordoned off!

A couple of cones and this would never have happened.
Click to expand...

Appreciate the advice fellas. Is this just a case of going back directly to the individual at the council? They said a response could take 90 days originally, they actually ended up taking 41 days, which I guess isn't bad over Christmas, however I'd like to avoid waiting this time of period again. I'm assuming I don't have a choice.
 
Unfortunately you may need to move to Small Claims court - have you read this?

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/pothole-claims/

Judging by that, you've been though the full claim and been rejected, and the next step is small claims. It depends if you feel £650 is worth the hassle, but I don't know from a legal standpoint how you stand as it had been identified by the council before you hit it - I always thought that on that basis, you could successfully claim.
 
Did you claim on insurance or pay the £650?

Looks like you're into Small Claims Court territory, but you'll need to prove the Council didn't repair it within the correct timescales.
 
Matmulder said:
Unfortunately you may need to move to Small Claims court - have you read this?

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/pothole-claims/

Judging by that, you've been though the full claim and been rejected, and the next step is small claims. It depends if you feel £650 is worth the hassle, but I don't know from a legal standpoint how you stand as it had been identified by the council before you hit it - I always thought that on that basis, you could successfully claim.
Click to expand...

The £650 certainly stings, it's not the end of the world for us but I do feel strongly that this legitimately isn't our fault and could've resulted in an even worse situation for someone else. I feel the liability stands with the council. Thanks for the link, I think I've read it, but I'll check again after dinner.

MagicBoy said:
Did you claim on insurance or pay the £650?

Looks like you're into Small Claims Court territory, but you'll need to prove the Council didn't repair it within the correct timescales.
Click to expand...

We paid the £650 ourselves.

Yeah, agreed - seems like the next move unfortunately. My argument would be that the council attended the site and didn't put adequate warning at the location of the issue.
 
Did you ever come to a conclusion regarding the gearbox?

I can think of several possible mechanisms whereby an impact like this could cause internal damage.
 
wingman said:
My argument would be that the council attended the site and didn't put adequate warning at the location of the issue.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't signed, or otherwise indicated then I'd agree with that. Used to support highways officers in an old job role, and I've seen them approve claims under the process you've been stonewalled at for something less clear cut.
 
wingman said:
Yeah, agreed - seems like the next move unfortunately. My argument would be that the council attended the site and didn't put adequate warning at the location of the issue.
Click to expand...

You wont win im afraid, the council has a statutory section 58 defense, and based on your own postings a judge would likely agree that having a repair ordered (and done) then an emergency repair from what looks like a collapse within 24hours done would cover them under that defense.
 
kindai said:
You wont win im afraid, the council has a statutory section 58 defense, and based on your own postings a judge would likely agree that having a repair ordered (and done) then an emergency repair from what looks like a collapse within 24hours done would cover them under that defense.
Click to expand...
The council hired contractors to repair it, they failed (sub standard work??). They then redid it.... therefore i firmly lay the claim with the council.
 
yes their 2nd visit and accelerated repair schedule recognised the severity of the problem .. yet they didn't put up signage,
what would have warranted that ?, possibly they didn't contemplate the rain, hydraulic effect and hole being masked by a puddle.
 
kindai said:
You wont win im afraid, the council has a statutory section 58 defense, and based on your own postings a judge would likely agree that having a repair ordered (and done) then an emergency repair from what looks like a collapse within 24hours done would cover them under that defense.
Click to expand...
I would say quite the contrary. They knew about the originated defect already and responded inadequately. They failed in their duty of care and statutory responsibility. There was lack of due diligence and the repair and inspection regime was not to a satisfactory standard such that it caused an accident in which damage to the Claimant's motor vehicle was sustained.
You will need much better photos though, make sure the invoice says damage caused by hitting road defect or similar. Photos of the damage of the car (tyre) would be useful.
Section 58 defence is for things like a collapsed culvert that there was no record of. Councils think it is a get out of jail card.
 
I hit a pothole on a sliproad onto the M6, they were doing the smart motorway ******** at the time. I got told to bugger off even with dashcam footage but eventually got them to pay for a new tyre. Although when I posted on here asking for advice I was still told I was in the wrong, which isn't surprising as everyone is a perfect driver who've never looked away from whats directly infront of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom