Pothole question

Nasher said:
Get the local.press involved. That seems to get councils moving :D
Click to expand...
I'm not sure actually. Essex cc are so persistent i think nothing will deter them from paying out unless they lose. Something silly like 1.25% claims against them have been successful in 2021 the last year I have data for.

The thing I can see being an issue though is the fact the first garage didn't pick up on the shocks which went. And the garage that did repair them doesn't want to get involved. The council didn't have an issue with it at the time but because their defence about the pothole itself is so poor they're predictably starting to question the damage.

I really thought having dashcam footage of it would be very conclusive , hopefully it will be to a judge because it's almost as if the council hasn't watched it.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
I wouldn't be surprised if they settle just before the date. They are likely hoping you'll just go away rather than actually going to court.
Click to expand...
Yeah from what i've heard of others who have gone through the process they often just concede usually just before the hearing. The court is suggesting mediation and I have emailed the council's solicitors, asking if their client would consider this though i believe it will be a no
 
tacticalx86 said:
Yeah from what i've heard of others who have gone through the process they often just concede usually just before the hearing. The court is suggesting mediation and I have emailed the council's solicitors, asking if their client would consider this though i believe it will be a no
Click to expand...

If you have a figure that this has cost you then don't back down from that in mediation and also ask for them to pay the court fee as well.
 
I think the only issue i see with my claim is the damage to the shock absorbers is the OSF rather than the NSF where the pothole hit. However, given it had an MOT a couple months to the day before the incident occured; and the noise only began after i hit the pothole (and i hadn't hit any more after) it seems like suerly it must have been affected, in some way? I'm not a mechanic so i can't say, and there's no expert witnesses because its a small claims (unless somehow the council decide to bring one in which i'm not sure would be permissiable)
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
If you have a figure that this has cost you then don't back down from that in mediation and also ask for them to pay the court fee as well.
Click to expand...
So today their paralegal team responded that they would need to consult with their client, and ascertain as to whether they have "any offers to put forward" or if they want to "continue defending". So potentially it seems like they could throw in the towel.

They're asking if I have any offers to put forward.

I'm thinking the full amount (£363.01, plus the court fee), but minus the 8% interest rate which is currently adding £9.95 onto the value.

I mean i have nothing to lose if its on the small claims track other than potentially a total of £109 inc a hearing fee so I am in a better position to negotiate. what do you think of that offer, or should i just include the interest as well?

I guess as well i would accept the money without them admitting liability
 
Last edited:
Surely it's cheaper for them to just pay out than keep paying lawyers. These costs are going to go up every time they contact them.

This is why councils are going broke. Not because they lack money, they just have idiots spending it
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Surely it's cheaper for them to just pay out than keep paying lawyers. These costs are going to go up every time they contact them.

This is why councils are going broke. Not because they lack money, they just have idiots spending it
Click to expand...
I wonder if its because they think they can win it because they think there's "no causality" between the second half of my claim and the pothole. They argued there was no causality for the whole claim.

As a reminder, the first garage I took my car to repaired the car but only found broken suspension links. The car was making a rattling noise so i took it to another garage (this was in like the weeks after the impact), and they found broken OSF shock absorbers. Now I know it was the near side that hit the pothole, but it seems a huge coincidence for this part to break shortly after the pothole and be unrelated, especially when the car was MOTed 2 months to the day of the accident. I always debated whether it was worth adding to the claim, in case they thought it was fraudulent. But I'm pretty sure the court could rule they are liable for say the first half of the claim rather than the second, rather than rule the whole claim inadmissible, and whilst I would like the whole money, I will settle for the broken suspension links.

That's the only reason I can think of why the council is continuing to pursue, that and they're hoping I'll give up. Though there is no incentive for me to give up as other than court fees and not getting my money back, there is no consequence for me taking the case to court whereas they will lose thousands.

Also no expert witnesses are being called so I doubt the council will have much credibility to argue that the OSF absorbers weren't damaged due to the hole, they have no more credibility in saying that than I do.

I don't know if it helps the case or not, but the first garage where I got the repair done (which didn't find the broken absorbers) shortly closed down afterwards.

Did approach the second garage, they told me not to bother due to the car's age and that there was no point in going to court.

When you consider the cost of repairing a pothole is about forty quid.....and defending this claim is probably costing the council around four grand....

In my witness statement, I have gone into significantly more detail than the particulars of the claim and made it explicitly clear that the rattling sound began immedieately after hitting the hole and thus can only be the cause.
 
Last edited:
Nasher said:
Surely it's cheaper for them to just pay out than keep paying lawyers. These costs are going to go up every time they contact them.

This is why councils are going broke. Not because they lack money, they just have idiots spending it
Click to expand...

Well that depends... a lot of people will not claim from them knowing the hassle when goes to court, but if the decide paying straight away, more people will start filling complains
 
Drangueos said:
Well that depends... a lot of people will not claim from them knowing the hassle when goes to court, but if the decide paying straight away, more people will start filling complains
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Pothole and vehicle damage in Essex prompts more than 7,000 claims

The number of claims for vehicle damage increases annually over a five-year period.
www.bbc.co.uk

The statistics are grim
That said when I made my claim ECC said only 2% of claims were successful - now it appears to be 4%. whether that includes eventual court cases or not is anyone's guess. I'm sure 99.9% of the claims are only successful when they get to court.
 
Last edited:
can you introduce further evidence ? - did you get access to the repair & inspection regime for the road ... foi request ?
ie. https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/what-to-do-if-the-council-wont-fix-potholes
You may need to prove that the authority has failed in their duty to regularly inspect and maintain the highway and so has been negligent. This point is more difficult to prove as authorities will have inspection and maintenance requirements in place which set out the road inspection requirements and timescales. The frequency a road needs to be inspected varies and is dependent upon factors such as the type of road, volume of traffic and state of repair.

Essentially, authorities maintain processes which will confirm how often roads should be inspected and how quickly repairs should take place. Records should be maintained by the authorities showing the inspection and maintenance records for roads they are responsible for. A Freedom of Information Request (known as an FOI) can be made to the authority requesting these records. If it can be proven the authority has failed to inspect the road in accordance with their own policy, then it may be easier to bring a claim against them for any damages or injuries sustained.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom