Pothole question

[tacticalx86]

Is there anyone here with a background in highways ? Or just at the very least someone to give me an opinion?

A pothole on an Essex CC road caused nearly £400 of damage to my car. Broke stabiliser links and shock absorbers..council knew about pothole from 2021 when they assessed it as in need of repair but not dangerous enough to be within 5 days, no timeframe in fact. I reported it , made a claim, council rejected it again saying it wasn't dangerous. But according to their own criteria it would be as it would not have the score of 1 for "consequence" they assigned to me, which according to their own definition, would be akin to a minor jarring for passengers.

Now preparing for small claims court..trying to establish negligence having established the danger.

Lots of accounts of people having their tyres burst, rims damaged, even ended up being beached. But the council measured the hole as just three inches deep. It has water in it. My concern is potentially the council didn't measure below the water. If they didn't they wouldn't have measured the whole.hole and perhaps believed because of this it wouldn't be dangerous. If they failed to do a correct inspection then they are surely negligent.

Here is a picture of the hole and dashcam footage, both of which the council has seen. Kennel Lane in Billericay.

I'm not looking for legal advice but merely from those who have a background in highways etc, if there are any people with that background here and can make an assessment off the road, I would be interested in presenting that in a document I will send to the council giving them the chance to pay before small claims court, if not I will bring it up in court

pothole – Google Drive

drive.google.com

The dimensions of the hole according to Essex: 1m x 500mm x 70mm

Judging by the video footage , would a 70mm pothole be capable of causing that damage at such a low speed?

Either other people are exaggerating or the council haven't measured the hole accurately

 

[tacticalx86]

all i can gather is the council will do all they can not to pay out, the roads are just terrible i am forever bottoms out on the nearside through country lanes fed up with it.

Any estimate of how big the hole is

Keep pushing. Similar situation to you, I suffered a damaged wheel and tyre from a pothole, I went to Anglia Water though as it was their roadworks that caused it. Ultimately Colchester City Council or Essex County Council (not 100% sure who has responsiblity for that road) would have been responsible though. Initially Anglian Water tried to push me to go through my insurer. After much back and forth, my claim of £954.18 was accepted. The turning point seemed to be when I suggested that they had fallen short of their obligations as set out in Highways Act 1980.

It was a bit of a different situation as in this case it was recent works that had not been completed to a good standard. This was the state of it less than a week after they "fixed" it for the second time after my incident:

Colchester is particularly bad.
How deep was the hole that caused your damage ?
I believe I have crossed the threshold to prove the hole was dangerous, given the evidence of damage to my vehicle through repair bills and the dashcam footage, and other people's accounts, but negligence seems difficult. They quote s58 of the highways act . I've requested fois on the maintenance and history log and other than the last inspection being over a month later than it should have been, nothing, though each inspection noted there were "no actionable defects". Yet the pothole I hit was logged in October 2021. The council removed this from their track it site but I had screenshotted it with the date on the computer before they had a chance to get rid of the evidence.

The thing that worries me is a spiral of court costs. Did it get to court or was it an out of court settlement.

 

[tacticalx86]

I didn't measure it, I only took photos. Its a busy junction, measuring it would not be safe. I leaned into the fact it was in an unavoidable position (single lane, stretches across half the lane), and in my case because it was recently completed works that had failed that had been previously reported, they did not have a valid section 58 defence.



Have you measured it yourself? If you have and it is significantly deeper, you may be able use this to demonstrate that their processes were not adequate, which will help you knock down their section 58 defence. All of this business about inspections, measurements etc is to support their position re: section 58 - if you blow holes in that process, you blow holes in their defence.

I will when I get back but then the council could argue that that wasn't the depth at inspection etc.

I've argued so far in a document I've produced with my case that the defect was not noted in either annual inspection despite it being very visible and also despite the fact that it was reported in October 2021 which leads me into my next point - I hit the pothole in May...2023. so for eighteen months the pothole was left I know there is no time frame for "non dangerous" potholes to be fixed and it might not have been in that state at the time , but s58 makes reference to a reasonable time frame and 18 months is not particularly reasonable I would think, maybe within a year, who knows.

 

[tacticalx86]

amazed it did that damage at basically crawl speed. I had assumed you had hit it at 20mph or so. Thats a bad pothole to cause so much damage at walking pace. I hit a similar one to that and just blew my tyre out on my car at 60mph.

Other people have had their tyres blown out at faster speeds. The road is 30 limit. How deep would a pothole have to be to cause the kind of damage I had? As council only reckon it's 3 inches. But my tyre clearance is more like 6

 

[tacticalx86]

hadn't seen video but the picture & hole was the same size as local one we had for at least a month that we all knew/avoided,
I mean I'd never drive through it, or looking at video, crawl through, you remember they are there even filled with rain.

damage is surprising, yes, although I'd wondered if knuckle by wheel, or bodywork would ground on ours

yes I'm sympathetic ... but if you used the road regularly.

I hadn't driven down the road before this (and never will again!). Part of my job at the time involved travelling to different company premises. Google maps took me down this route. The council even if they didn't fix it could have at least erected a sign warning people.

Like said they gave me the dimensions of the hole .. 1m in length, 500m in width, 70mm in depth. But I wonder if they only measured above the water. Two other people have approached me claiming their cars have been damaged by the hole and again it's quite a large amount even worse than mine, eg, blown out tyres. One person had their tyre blown out just two weeks ago, that was AFTER the council deemed it not to be dangerous for me!!

 

[tacticalx86]

If you are going to sue, the claim is pleaded under s.41 of the Highways Act 1980

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpg...w.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/41

However the council will have a defence under s.58 if they can show they have a reasonable system of maintainance and inspection (usually considered to be inspecting the road every 6 months). Councils when sued often rely on witness statements from postmen or bin collectors to say they walk the route regularly and did not notice any undulations.

Finally your photographs are insufficient for litigation purposes. You need to take new ones when the water is drained out of the hole along with a large ruler/tape measure on the photo to clearly show how deep and wide the hole is.

Good luck.

Thank you. I will do that.
Could the council argue though that whilst the pothole may be in that state now it was not when they measured?

How would the council have measured..obviously if possible I will need to go back to the hole and drain it, which I will do (out of the country at the moment so nothing much I can do)

I know they have equipment I'm just aware in court thd council and their legal team could argue only a qualified inspector etc etc could measure the hole accurately. Would they have also not taken pictures? I suppose I might have to send another FOI to see

 

[tacticalx86]

Can't comment to add specifics but that I post up on fix my street as opposed to the local councils pothole logging site.
They keep complaining at me for doing so, but they cannot change fix my street so if they simply close the pothole on their site it loses traceability.

I find it quite good for other things as well such as fly tipping etc.

FixMyStreet

Report, view, and discuss local street-related problems.

www.fixmystreet.com

That's interesting thank you. It's certainly dubious how they only removed the 2021 report after rejecting my claim, I will mention this to the council and in court if it gets that far. I have a screenshot of the councils website showing the 2021 report and the date I took the screenshot is shown on the windows taskbar in the picture. Image metadata will also confirm the date of the screenshot, a few days after my accident.

 

[tacticalx86]

If you are going to sue, the claim is pleaded under s.41 of the Highways Act 1980

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpg...w.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/41

However the council will have a defence under s.58 if they can show they have a reasonable system of maintainance and inspection (usually considered to be inspecting the road every 6 months). Councils when sued often rely on witness statements from postmen or bin collectors to say they walk the route regularly and did not notice any undulations.

Finally your photographs are insufficient for litigation purposes. You need to take new ones when the water is drained out of the hole along with a large ruler/tape measure on the photo to clearly show how deep and wide the hole is.

Good luck.

I have the foi of the inspection data .
The roads were inspected every year/12 months as required for the road
HOWEVER ...
the most recent inspection was actually 13 months , not 12 months, after the previous one and no reason was given for this.
"No actionable defects" were found in the 2021 and 2022 inspections
However testimony from one victim of the crater said their car was beached in the hole in around November/December 2022 - the inspection that year was the 23rd November .

Furthermore the council had ample time of 18 months to repair the defect after becoming aware of it in October 2021 when they determined that a defect had been identified..Essex county council recognize potholes as 50mm.deep, slightly more than the national criteria, so it was already relatively significant by 2021.

I obtained traffic data for the road from a local planning application which showed 190 vehicles in total going both ways at peak hours. It's not a main route but if it was correctly identified as a category 1 pothole it would have been fixed within 5 days, if it was a major route it would have been 2 days..

 

[tacticalx86]

While i can sympathise, I doubt very much you can prove a pot hole did that damage.

But if you can claim from the council then let me know please, I live in a rural faming area with potholes much worse that that one and our cars are always getting damaged by them.

The council did not dispute the damage my car suffered in the response to the claim,.only that the hole was not dangerous by their criteria. However by their own definition of dangerous the damage my car suffered would put it in the dangerous category. The councils definiton of "negligible" impact, the term they assigned to the pothole, is a "minor jarring" to passengers. The video shows it is quite severe.. There are potholes on every single bloody road in Essex and none have had this impact. It is also remarkable that this damage happened at this speed, which again you can see in the video.

 

[tacticalx86]

Sounds to me that you are spending even more money (in hours) finding proof. If you lose, it will double your losses.

I've got plenty of time lol. All I need to do now is wait for the final fois I sent off and drain this hole and measure it. Then I'll send a claim to the council . If they rejeft or ignore that I'll tell them I'll go to the smc and I'll star the process for it.

It's not just about the money they owe me the holes in Essex are chronically bad and if I get this overturned through undermining their own assessment system for potholes that will expose the entire system at Essex . Many could be entitled to compensation. Honestly most people probably won't bother ww you point out it's time consuming but it's worth it to me

Monetary wise y s that's my only concern but I plan on setting up a fundraiser for any costs that I could incur if I do lose. A lot of support locally as a lot of people have had bad experiences with the pothole. If the money is not needed it will either be returned or given to a road accident charity depending on the preference of the donor.

 

[tacticalx86]

It's always a battle when you want ANYTHING from the council. They are the ultimate jobsworths.

The way they took down the report shows they know they are in the wrong TBH. Trying to cover it up won't look good for them in court

Yep. And I have screenshot evidence of its existence. They probably thought I wouldn't notice. I'm hoping once I put all this in an email to send , in the face of overwhelming evidence including the testimonies of at least two people who will produce witness statements for thr court, thst they'll quietly just pay me the money, whilst perhaps not admitting liability. This happened to someone I found online where he made a claim against a water company and Essex CC for pothole damage and they paid him whilst not admitting liability.

 

[tacticalx86]

They never admit liability, even though paying out is pretty much admitting liability. It's their road and they paid for the damage..

They'd probably call it a "goodwill gesture".

 

[tacticalx86]

Indeed. I used to contract to local councils and I can honestly say they are the biggest bunch of "haven't a clue" people that I have ever known. These are people that would otherwise be unemployable.

Depends on car. Range rover wont feel a thing. Lowered beamer 3 series = total loss

My car has a clearance of 170mm.
See this is why if the danger score is based on depth it's nonsensical. It isn't, at least not directly, it's based on the perceived consequence. But I'm guessing they estimate the consequence through the size of the hole.

Unless the council believe I am somehow fabricating the claim, it's unbelievable for them to not admit it's dangerous. I also have texts sent to my boss that day informing them I might be late the next shift owing to a pothole which seems to have damaged my car , also got texts I sent to family. Again , metadata will confirm the dates they were sent.


The only issue could be is two garages did the repairs the first one only picked up on broken suspension links. Because I continued to hear rattling and I couldn't narrow down the part of the car it was coming in for I booked my car in for a service at another garage which found broken front shock absorbers I invoiced the cost of that part of the service( just the replacement shock absorbers and labour) after I had sent the initial invoice for the suspension links. But the council raised no issue with this and to eliminate the car having existing defects, the car had an MOT three months to the exact day the accident occured and the car passed; no advisories were found relating to the suspension links and shock absorbers.

 

[tacticalx86]

Height from ground is just one part of the equation, suspension stiffness and travel is the main factor that will govern impact absorption.
German cars tend to suffer than jap counterparts.
Then if mods are done like lowering it makes bigger difference, 1 inch drop is gonna be something like 5 times as bad as stock height.

It was a 2010 Honda Civic, built like a tank . No mods . Such a low speed.

 

[tacticalx86]

2010 civic, that would make it a fd2/fn2 type r. Those have hard suspension and low profile tyres so hitting that big a pothole will do some damage.

The front tyres had literally been replaced a month or so before had they not been new I'm sure they would have burst. Wonder if there's anyway I can back what you've said up in court or whatever to amplify just how bad the pothole would have been to damage the car etc .

Like I said if you look at the video the front left of the car almost sinks into the hole basically

 

[tacticalx86]

It will be type r otherwise no point posting and crying on forum over 300 quids worth of honda

It's a type s

 

[tacticalx86]

A good trick is to see if the pothole appears on Google Street View. If it does, you can show the pothole has been there a long time and not been fixed, irrespective of their inspection regime, which will completely defeat their defence.

Yes I have streetview from 2009, 2016, 2018. Not the best but here it goes

Degeneration of pothole – Google Drive

drive.google.com

In 2009 the road is in perfect condition.
In 2016 the side of the carriageway has started to wear away leaving gap for the pothole
In 2018 the pothole has formed there and starting to resemble the pothole I saw with water inside it. The picture I took shows how the pothole has gradually spread in length and width from the edge of the carriageway to well within the carriageway

 

[tacticalx86]

Ok newsflash!

I've just checked the councils pothole portal again. Yesterday I spoke to one witness I will use who had his car damaged. Yesterday he reported the pothole on the defect system. I can see on the council system, though it doesn't specify a date, that in August 2023 the road was inspected, and the latest update now reads

"We've investigated and assessed this issue. We have assigned this to a team to progress the scheduling of works".

So I'm pleased it seems like they've realised that actually, this is a dangerous pothole and they need to repair it. How does this help me though? Because if they repair it I won't be able to measure the original pothole. Will this latest admission that the pothole is dangerous per their most recent inspection essentially destroy their previous ruling when the road was inspected in May after my accident?

 

[tacticalx86]

I'd get in there and measure it quick.

Can't . I'm out of the country

 

[tacticalx86]

They did exactly the same thing with my father in law, I posted earlier he lost his fight against the council.

He registered with his insurance who then logged the claim against the council and the next morning it was filled.

They are right buggers.

I wonder why Now though. I wonder if they've seen some of these posts.
If anyone is in Essex and wants to do us a favour go down there ! Kennel Lane Billericay. The council will be repairing the hole wirhinn 5 days possibly less