Pothole question
- Thread starter tacticalx86
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pothole
Not bothering with insurance it's not the insurers thought and it will only punish me by losing me my Ncd.
How long do the council have to respond to my rejection of their rejection ?
Through their system they took two months and afterwards in their rejection they said the only way of appeal was through SMC.
Soldato
Yup told you they are right buggers.
They are quick to cover it up (no pun intended) when someone starts taking proper action until then they don't care.
I've already sent my rejection letter explaining why I reject their appeal and why they should reimburse me (using a template from money saving expert and mentioning everything here along with also mentioning how the pothole was deemed in need of urgent repair in August but not at the end of may when the claim was made). How long do they have to respond? I didn't give them a time frame I just asked them to confirm receipt
Soldato
I hate to say it but unless you are prepared to take them to a small claims court you are probably wasting your time.
I am. But I want to give them the chance no matter how futile it may be to show the court I've done what I can to settle out of court .
Soldato
Fair enough. I would give them a while, I dunno, what ever you think it reasonable, then chase it again with an "it's been xxx amount of time" and say they have 10 more woroking days before you go legal.
If you are already on MSE I am sure you will find the various templates.
Yep. I think I will do that. It will give me time for some of the fois to come back and any more evidence I get will be used in court
Asked on MSE about this and it's come up apparently because I haven't told my insurers I'd be in trouble?
I never considered it to be an accident so failed to see why I would need to tell them and I've also never tried to claim anything from them so to me it's the same way as if you have an accident and rather than claim on insurance you just settle outside
I never considered it to be an accident so failed to see why I would need to tell them and I've also never tried to claim anything from them so to me it's the same way as if you have an accident and rather than claim on insurance you just settle outside
Do the councils underwrite all payouts - otherwise they could put car details into the insurance system, or might do anyway just to check up on any potential fraud.
Telling council you have told your insurance add to claim legitimacy too, if it's up at the £1K level wouldn't most people tell insurance, they wouldn't want to pay it themselves.
there'd be money in an app that exported data from the highway pot-hole system into waze/similar.
[sainthood application in the post
I'm always very cautious of driving through standing water - again I know from local examples it'd be a bad day,
even in the dry people demonstrably don't scan the road surface, or watch the suspension of the car in front to see the upcoming hits, sit there wincing as a passenger in relations cars.
]
Telling council you have told your insurance add to claim legitimacy too, if it's up at the £1K level wouldn't most people tell insurance, they wouldn't want to pay it themselves.
google maps ? seems poor vs waze - earlier discussion https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...-state-of-roads-again.18974047/#post-36496944
there'd be money in an app that exported data from the highway pot-hole system into waze/similar.
[sainthood application in the post
I'm always very cautious of driving through standing water - again I know from local examples it'd be a bad day,
even in the dry people demonstrably don't scan the road surface, or watch the suspension of the car in front to see the upcoming hits, sit there wincing as a passenger in relations cars.
]
According to my insurance documents I am not obliged to tell them until renewal
According to Hounslow (not the council I am claiming against) they do use the national database. However presumably they would check that etc when I initially made my claim and I have heard nothing from my insurers.
Last edited:
So it hasn't been fixed!
drive.google.com
Two potholes near it have been resurfaced but mine hasn't. I will be going back soon to drain it and measure
IMG20230818101429.jpg
drive.google.com
Two potholes near it have been resurfaced but mine hasn't. I will be going back soon to drain it and measure
Pothole drained – Google Drive
drive.google.com
I drained the hole it took about 10 minutes! Absolutely filled with water. After draining it became clear just how big the hole was and I've measured it as approx 200mm (20cm) with a tape measure. That fits in with a third party measuring it as 280mm but clearly whatever the size, it is far, far, far greater than the 70mm the council measured. I wonder if through incompetence they measured the wrong hole. There's two more which have recently been repaired just a few metres up from my hole. The location of these potholes which were repaired on the 14th correspond with the location the council assigned me. If the council had watched the video they would clearly know it wasn't one of those holes so either they didn't watch the video, and meausred the wrong hole, or they didnt' measure my hole properly. It clearly had not been drained of water. Even if the council argue it was 70mm when they measured it, that would mean the hole would have had to have increased in depth by 130mm between the 26th May and the 18th August. I'm no expert but with common sense that is clearly impossible.
Pothole drained – Google Drive
drive.google.com
Last edited:
the picture with the submerged cone was compelling showing size/depth - any emptied pictures from bank side to show edge, you fall off.
the holes are all within notional carriageway width 3.5m (?) or 6'6" some of our single tracks are marked
Hydraulic action from local tipper truck fleet, are what quickly excavates the road-side pot-holes on wider B road, they cut corners, like the tractors now pulling trailers/harvest night&day.
the holes are all within notional carriageway width 3.5m (?) or 6'6" some of our single tracks are marked
Hydraulic action from local tipper truck fleet, are what quickly excavates the road-side pot-holes on wider B road, they cut corners, like the tractors now pulling trailers/harvest night&day.
did you see the second lot of pics.
I ws going to stand in the hole it was that big but i could feel myself actually sinking in mud
Right another UPDATE
So I asked about why the reference from "track it" dating to october 2021 was removed., They claimed (very erroneously if i must say) that somehow whilst classed as a "carriageway defect" it was actually a "water drainage" issue. Judging by the state of the road today that issue still exists.
I can confirm that Essex County Council does hold this information, and where we
are able to release this, our response is listed below.
Track it reference 2721868 last updated 21 st October 2021 relating to a carriageway
defect/pothole - can you please inform me of the following:
Question 1 - the site history report of 2021 relating to this pothole including the
dimensions of the pothole and the associated risk assessment eg the priority score
and how this was calculated (consequence and likelihood scored etc)
Although the enquiry related to a carriageway defect the enquiry has been linked to a
standing water defect, number 3532510 which has been associated to the enquiry.
However, the enquiry should have been linked to carriageway defect 3348971.
The data shows a claim was made against ECC for a vehicle's underside being damaged on the 7th May 2021. This was some 2 years before my collision.
I'm trying to make sense of the data still but here is what htey had to say about that pothole in 2019
3348971 Ra 6=3×2 nsmm verge overrun 28/03/2019 2.0x0.9x140mm size is an estimate as unsafe to mark or measure Btwn opp fox cottage and jw hunters ave HW: verge over-run Internal No Action Required
So it was 140mm in depth 4 years ago, 200 today. Yet the council deemed it no action required and unsafe to mark or measure?
This leads us onto the next request, relating to how the pothole relating to my claim was measured.
The council said there was no information relating to how the measurement was taking and if it was measured below the water. They've sent some photos. They appear to be taken from a maintenance van.
The council is contradicting their own data!!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azJRa8Fix7OgKdOO8Xhp71e3V9QCZq5F/view?usp=sharing - my claim
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAamcKQ4SCfZElS5tFwkjNBkdcu8GOy9/view?usp=sharing - a claim in May of 2021. This means the defect had been in place for 2 years.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lxNOU6NFzhz_0RiRbY5EiX2-ktT0uH5u/view?usp=sharing - Report from March 2019. Here it is not called a "pothole" but rather a "verge overrun". Deemed "unsafe" to measure, a rough estimation of the depth is given as 140mm. That is twice the size of the defect depth given in 2023 May after my accident. So unless potholes now have hte ability to shrink the council are blatantly wrong.
The council seem to have taken some very poor images from the relative comfort and safety of a maintenance van, rather than on foot. Bear in mind it is absolutely safe to be on foot. I did it today. Cars drive very slowly because they know the state of the road and its so narrow.
So the council KNEW about the defect for over 4 years, doubling the 2021 time frame. And an accident occured in May, several months before being noted in October.
The issue I see is the council haven't labelled my pothole in the same place as the others but the description from 2019 and May 2021 more roughly reflects the location I hit than the more vague description given in 2023. Another FOI would confirm this or in court. The other thing I note in 2019 and 2021 they call it a "verge overrun" but in 2023 they call it a "pothole".
So I asked about why the reference from "track it" dating to october 2021 was removed., They claimed (very erroneously if i must say) that somehow whilst classed as a "carriageway defect" it was actually a "water drainage" issue. Judging by the state of the road today that issue still exists.
I can confirm that Essex County Council does hold this information, and where we
are able to release this, our response is listed below.
Track it reference 2721868 last updated 21 st October 2021 relating to a carriageway
defect/pothole - can you please inform me of the following:
Question 1 - the site history report of 2021 relating to this pothole including the
dimensions of the pothole and the associated risk assessment eg the priority score
and how this was calculated (consequence and likelihood scored etc)
Although the enquiry related to a carriageway defect the enquiry has been linked to a
standing water defect, number 3532510 which has been associated to the enquiry.
However, the enquiry should have been linked to carriageway defect 3348971.
The data shows a claim was made against ECC for a vehicle's underside being damaged on the 7th May 2021. This was some 2 years before my collision.
I'm trying to make sense of the data still but here is what htey had to say about that pothole in 2019
3348971 Ra 6=3×2 nsmm verge overrun 28/03/2019 2.0x0.9x140mm size is an estimate as unsafe to mark or measure Btwn opp fox cottage and jw hunters ave HW: verge over-run Internal No Action Required
So it was 140mm in depth 4 years ago, 200 today. Yet the council deemed it no action required and unsafe to mark or measure?
This leads us onto the next request, relating to how the pothole relating to my claim was measured.
The council said there was no information relating to how the measurement was taking and if it was measured below the water. They've sent some photos. They appear to be taken from a maintenance van.
The council is contradicting their own data!!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1azJRa8Fix7OgKdOO8Xhp71e3V9QCZq5F/view?usp=sharing - my claim
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bAamcKQ4SCfZElS5tFwkjNBkdcu8GOy9/view?usp=sharing - a claim in May of 2021. This means the defect had been in place for 2 years.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lxNOU6NFzhz_0RiRbY5EiX2-ktT0uH5u/view?usp=sharing - Report from March 2019. Here it is not called a "pothole" but rather a "verge overrun". Deemed "unsafe" to measure, a rough estimation of the depth is given as 140mm. That is twice the size of the defect depth given in 2023 May after my accident. So unless potholes now have hte ability to shrink the council are blatantly wrong.
The council seem to have taken some very poor images from the relative comfort and safety of a maintenance van, rather than on foot. Bear in mind it is absolutely safe to be on foot. I did it today. Cars drive very slowly because they know the state of the road and its so narrow.
So the council KNEW about the defect for over 4 years, doubling the 2021 time frame. And an accident occured in May, several months before being noted in October.
The issue I see is the council haven't labelled my pothole in the same place as the others but the description from 2019 and May 2021 more roughly reflects the location I hit than the more vague description given in 2023. Another FOI would confirm this or in court. The other thing I note in 2019 and 2021 they call it a "verge overrun" but in 2023 they call it a "pothole".
Last edited:
Ok update.
So armed with the evidence (the pictures of the full depth of the pothole and measurement, the council data revealing they knew about it for 4 years and believed it to be 140mm in 2019 etc), i sent the council a Letter Before Action. 22 pieces of evidence included inside mostly photos as well as council data and data obtained through FOI and quotes for the repair.
Today they responded.
s
Dear ___
We write in reference to previous correspondence and the aforementioned claim.
Although we note your comments, we can confirm that the defect in question was not considered to be dangerous at the time of your incident. We can also confirm that although damage has occurred to your vehicle, it does not automatically make the defect dangerous. Damage caused by a pot hole does not automatically give rise to a successful claim for compensation. Accidents such as this do happen but it does not automatically mean that liability rests with Essex County Council. As we have previously explained, it must be proved that Essex County Council has failed in its duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act in order for a claim to be successful.
In addition, please do note that even in the event that the defect could have been categorised as being dangerous, Essex County Council would seek to rely upon the statutory Defence available to it under Section 58 (1) of the Highways Act 1980. This provides a defence for the Highway Authority, as long as it can prove that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the highway was not dangerous and had been maintained to a reasonable standard.
Whilst we are sympathetic to your situation, we must advise that Essex County Council has a duty to protect the public purse and as such cannot offer compensation when there is a legal defence to such claims. It is for this reason that we must confirm that liability in this matter remains denied. Should you wish to pursue your claim further, then the correct course of action is to seek resolution through the small claims court. We suggest that you may wish to seek independent legal advice before taking such action.
Kind regards,
Insurance Team
Legal & Assurance
I'm wondering - is this a response to my lba or a response to earlier correspondence? It seems remarkably quick. They were given 2 weeks to respond and they've responded in 2 days.
Again, it seems like they are not denying having known about the pothole for an extended period of time, or that they disbelieve my account.
Also I find it funny how they don't seem 100% certain of its danger. They say it wasn't considered dangerous, but then seem to imply there's a possibility it may ahve been dangerous etc.
I'm irritated because they haven't responded to any individual points, eg, the evidence i have given that shows the hole was not measured correctly after the accident.
NO mention of how glaringly obvious it is that the pothole was not measured correctly, proven by my photographs and measurement.
As for S41 I believe S58 acts as their primary defence and i debunked all the points in my letter.
Small claims time it is.
So armed with the evidence (the pictures of the full depth of the pothole and measurement, the council data revealing they knew about it for 4 years and believed it to be 140mm in 2019 etc), i sent the council a Letter Before Action. 22 pieces of evidence included inside mostly photos as well as council data and data obtained through FOI and quotes for the repair.
Today they responded.
s
Dear ___
We write in reference to previous correspondence and the aforementioned claim.
Although we note your comments, we can confirm that the defect in question was not considered to be dangerous at the time of your incident. We can also confirm that although damage has occurred to your vehicle, it does not automatically make the defect dangerous. Damage caused by a pot hole does not automatically give rise to a successful claim for compensation. Accidents such as this do happen but it does not automatically mean that liability rests with Essex County Council. As we have previously explained, it must be proved that Essex County Council has failed in its duty under Section 41 of the Highways Act in order for a claim to be successful.
In addition, please do note that even in the event that the defect could have been categorised as being dangerous, Essex County Council would seek to rely upon the statutory Defence available to it under Section 58 (1) of the Highways Act 1980. This provides a defence for the Highway Authority, as long as it can prove that it has taken reasonable steps to ensure the highway was not dangerous and had been maintained to a reasonable standard.
Whilst we are sympathetic to your situation, we must advise that Essex County Council has a duty to protect the public purse and as such cannot offer compensation when there is a legal defence to such claims. It is for this reason that we must confirm that liability in this matter remains denied. Should you wish to pursue your claim further, then the correct course of action is to seek resolution through the small claims court. We suggest that you may wish to seek independent legal advice before taking such action.
Kind regards,
Insurance Team
Legal & Assurance
I'm wondering - is this a response to my lba or a response to earlier correspondence? It seems remarkably quick. They were given 2 weeks to respond and they've responded in 2 days.
Again, it seems like they are not denying having known about the pothole for an extended period of time, or that they disbelieve my account.
Also I find it funny how they don't seem 100% certain of its danger. They say it wasn't considered dangerous, but then seem to imply there's a possibility it may ahve been dangerous etc.
I'm irritated because they haven't responded to any individual points, eg, the evidence i have given that shows the hole was not measured correctly after the accident.
NO mention of how glaringly obvious it is that the pothole was not measured correctly, proven by my photographs and measurement.
As for S41 I believe S58 acts as their primary defence and i debunked all the points in my letter.
Small claims time it is.
True, I thought they might in the face of overwhelming evidence concede to avoid court but i've also been told from people with experience that they sometimes pay out in the last minute before a court hearing etc.
This will be interesting.
Though I think if its not on the small claims track i'll have to pull out as if i incur hundreds of pounds if not more in cost sfighting it iwould excede the cost of the actual damage. i do plan to fundraise though and any money not used will be refunded or given to charity.