Pothole question

tacticalx86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just make the claim online. Wont cost more than £100 to do so.
Then see where it goes.

I also suggest you have someone proof read any further correspondence. As the way you structure the claim and your SPAG will likely have a bearing on the case. (not having a go, but your typing on here is erratic, and it will cause no harm to you to get it ratified prior to submission)
 
Last edited:
Diagro said:
Just make the claim online. Wont cost more than £100 to do so.
Then see where it goes.

I also suggest you have someone proof read any further correspondence. As the way you structure the claim and your SPAG will likely have a bearing on the case. (not having a go, but your typing on here is erratic, and it will cause no harm to you to get it ratified prior to submission)
Click to expand...
Yeah it'll only be £50 to make the claim due to the amount. But the issue is then if the council want it on a multi or fast track, court hearing fee etc etc.
I will go through everything again.

I'm planning on approaching the garages that did the repairs and asking them to give a statement offering confirmation that a pothole would be responsible for the defects. in the absence of that i have mot reports from 3 months before the accident showing no suspension or shock absorber related faults. are they supposed to do this for free, as surely a fee would look suspicious to acourt?
 
Last edited:
Interesting keeping up with this and will be interested to see how things go via SCC.

To me, it looks as though the hole isn't really on the carriageway but actually beside it on an area of verge that people have increasingly used as an extension to the road - once things become a proper legal discussion, I wonder if that will make a difference.
 
Kenai said:
Interesting keeping up with this and will be interested to see how things go via SCC.

To me, it looks as though the hole isn't really on the carriageway but actually beside it on an area of verge that people have increasingly used as an extension to the road - once things become a proper legal discussion, I wonder if that will make a difference.
Click to expand...
The thing is is that the council haven't mentioned that and their own definition seems to have changed.

In 2019, a location matching the description of the pothole I hit was described as a "verge overrun" with an estimated depth of 140mm. According to the council the required depth of a defect for an action like this would be 150mm. But in 2023 after my accident they called it a pothole and continue to do so with a depth of 70mm (50mm required for action). GSV from 2018 (last GSV taken) shows the defect formed and then it is at the edge of the carriageway but since then you can see it has spread into the main carriageway.

Any suggestion in court that it is not the main carriageway from the council will be rebuffed by me quoting their own words, that a road user has a 61-80% chance of hitting the defect.
 
Disappointingly, I suspect I won't get the satisfaction of finding out how that argument goes because i'm expecting they'll probably fold once you actually start the court process :p
 
I have waited 90 days that Surrey CC said i would wait before hearing anything, i have now had a email from them saying they are passing my case over to Ringway, i am not sure it this means they have agreed the payout or not.
 
Claim submitted.
Did try speaking to the garage but they didn't want to do it because they said it was "pointless" as it would just "get thrown out of court" and the age of my car (13 years) . Though it had passed its MOT at the same garage just 3 months before and the rattling noises only started after hitting the pothole. It was offside rather than nearside, so the only thing I can think of is when I drove out of the hole. Annoyingly I have only saved footage of the impact. Though again, the council has never denied any damage and in their most recent rejection they " We can also confirm that although damage has occurred to your vehicle..." suggesting they do not doubt i have sustained damage (and that's just with the invoices, the footage, no letter from any mechanic). Even if they just pay out for the front stabiliser links i will consider it a result, or just by admitting the pothole was in fact dangerous. The invoice in the claim is broken down so its clear which is what. Council been given til 13th September to respond. The first repair to the stabiliser links done at another garage (hadn't used them before but needed it fixed quickly), has now closed down so no chance of anything from them. I did however manage to source another witness from the road the incident happened. She sent me a picture of a car which got stuck in the pothole

324386120_544962191005090_1706700408498291154_n.jpg

drive.google.com drive.google.com
 
Last edited:
tacticalx86 said:
What's your case?
Click to expand...
I hit a pothole in May, filled in the forms on the Surrey CC pothole portal and waited the 90 days they say it will take to administer the claim, i phoned them after 90 days and they have now got back to me saying they have passed my claim to ringway (road contractor).
UQf1NI6.jpg
 
Chabsy said:
I hit a pothole in May, filled in the forms on the Surrey CC pothole portal and waited the 90 days they say it will take to administer the claim, i phoned them after 90 days and they have now got back to me saying they have passed my claim to ringway (road contractor).
UQf1NI6.jpg
Click to expand...
Maybe they (Ringways) recently did work on the road and therefore have some responsibility

If you need any help let me know
 
Last edited:
BUDFORCE said:
@tacticalx86

Fair play for taking it to court, and whilst I appreciate you needed to take the steps you did prior, I knew it would be a waste of time.

Also their correspondence about "protecting the public purse" made me cringe.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
Isn't it just. FOI just revealed the same council has spent several millions of pounds creating LTNs.

I find it even more laughable that they basically argue having an accident because of a pothole doesn't make the pothole dangerous

So what does?
 
Chabsy said:
It damaged 2 wheel and 1 tyre cheapest quote for OEM wheels was £1320.
dsXwDzmb.png
Click to expand...
Insane. Definitely pursue. It doesn't look that deep from here have you measured it? I would definitely do this as evidenced in my case the council or authority may not have actually measured the pothole (or done so inaccurately) . Do all the FOI requests
 
Small claim made today the councils lawyers have responded stating their intention to defend the claim it's entirety.

Litigation firm is Essex legal services. Anyone heard of them before , any experience?
 
The council's lawyers have got back.
I dont think its probably good to put the whole document on here but in summary:

"The Defendant contends that the Claimant does not have a cause of action to
bring a claim against Essex County Council. The claim form fails to set out any
cause of action or details of the circumstances of the accident and/or
allegations of breach of duty against the Defendant. The Defendant therefore
denies it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all and the Defendant invites
the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to its powers set out at Part 3.4 CPR."

I don't understand why they're saying the claim form fails to set out i've been explicitly clear and given all the evidence required.

Other things they've said - they seem to make a point of there not being anything from the garages, saying "
The Claimant is put to strict proof as to causation and to produce documentary
evidence in support of the alleged losses claimed."

I am in the process of retrieving a quote from one of hte garages, it recently went into liquidation.

They have the audacity to somehow suggest at the end that driver error may have also played a part.
 
Last edited:
so they are saying they regularly inspect the road and have acted promptly to repair any defects that have been notified, don't they have to provide documentation. ?

and suggesting damage may not have been consequence of that hole ?
video seemed pretty damning if they agree location is the same. otherwise, not sure how anyone would prove causality unless they were towed from the hole, or 3rd party witness.
 
jpaul said:
so they are saying they regularly inspect the road and have acted promptly to repair any defects that have been notified, don't they have to provide documentation. ?

and suggesting damage may not have been consequence of that hole ?
video seemed pretty damning if they agree location is the same. otherwise, not sure how anyone would prove causality unless they were towed from the hole, or 3rd party witness.
Click to expand...
They have and i've looked at it. I think they're misunderstanding what i'm saying.
They're saying they didn't find any defects which were "dangerous".
I'm not denying that and never have, i'm saying that they didn't act within a reasonable period of time to repair the defects that were non dangerous to prevent them from becoming so (a period of 4 years).

I've spoken to a mechanic who did the suspension links - initally he said he would be reluctant to because hed have asusmed the alloys would be damaged first but hes watched the video and said the shock absorbers definitely went.

My biggest worry is the court thinking that everything is too complicated and they'll put it on fast or multi track where i end up paying the council's fees (which i believe by default if you lose it works out to £19 an hour).
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
so they are saying they regularly inspect the road and have acted promptly to repair any defects that have been notified, don't they have to provide documentation. ?

and suggesting damage may not have been consequence of that hole ?
video seemed pretty damning if they agree location is the same. otherwise, not sure how anyone would prove causality unless they were towed from the hole, or 3rd party witness.
Click to expand...
according to their documents the last inspection "didn't find a defect". But either by that they mean a "dangerous" one wasn't found, or they were very negligent which is my argument - becaues google street view imagery from 2018 shows the pothole back then. And i have witness statements from people around the time of the inspection given their account of the damage etc.

This is ironically the thing, i have accumulated so much evidence many of them witnesses such as residents or other road users i worry if that will actually go against me and the court will deem it complicated.
The council saying it could be down to my negligence is pathetic, this whole thing, it's almost as if they haven't watched the video.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom