Soldato
I fully approve of you pursuing this through the SCC. However, just be aware, they can make an application to the court to have you pay their legal costs also.
Pothole question
- Thread starter tacticalx86
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pothole
I fully approve of you pursuing this through the SCC. However, just be aware, they can make an application to the court to have you pay their legal costs also.
What application is this known as?
From my understanding one only becomes responsible for legal costs if the defendant has behaved unreasonably in the eyes of the judge, eg, there is something funamentally incorrect with their case or they have acted irresponsibly.
Last edited:
Soldato
Ignore me! You are correct, I was thinking about fast track cases.
Soldato
So can you claim against the council if you damage your car via a pot hole? Wish Id know this before Christmas! Hit a pothole and ended up with a puncture and cost me £280 for a new tyre!
Absolutely, and you still can (you have 6 years to make any claim).
Find out the reporting procedure for potholes by going onto your council website, report it through them, make sure you get pictures, receipts, measure the hole etc. You wait quite a few weeks for the council to back to you, they say they will either pay or they won't. Then if they don't pay you make a claim through HMCTS money claim.
Things have taken another unexpected turn. Emailed this morning from the small claims mediation service saying I will have a mediation appointment within four weeks. This is despite the council telling me via their lawyers they did not wish to meditate. Interesting
I emailed the council's solicitors, they say they will confirm with them again if they wish to mediate, I don't believe they will because by accepting mediation they'll essentially be admitting they're at fault because they'd consider paying me anything.
I emailed the council's solicitors, they say they will confirm with them again if they wish to mediate, I don't believe they will because by accepting mediation they'll essentially be admitting they're at fault because they'd consider paying me anything.
Last edited:
Soldato
You can, but you'll only be able to claim if the council has been negligent or hasn't followed it's own procedures.
Legally councils have to maintain the highways and councils set out an inspection regime/schedule to check for potholes. I imagine they'll also have a policy document with repair response times.
If the council hasn't followed this, or a pothole has been reported and no action taken within a certain period, you would be able to claim.
This is because it's obviously unrealistic to inspect the same stretch of road constantly or fix potholes they don't know about.
Last edited:
The issue is is that there is no national, standardised strategy for pothole repairs. Councils are left to their own devices. IMO if the government are srious about potholes and fixing them they should enforce nationally mandated guidance, with repair times they have to follow, the same defination as to what a pothole is defined as etc
Soldato
Do you think it's a case of them doing the maths working out what the legal fees would be vs what it'd be to just give you £300 and get you on your way?
Ok so update.
I requested a new batch of FOI data on the road inspection in August.
THREE potholes including mine noted.
I'm now starting to wonder if the "verge overrun" measured as 140mm in depth is actually a different pothole, the one which was first noted in 2019. The new FOI data I got said it had been fixed through a sign being placed there, which was there when I went to measure my defect in August.
There is a second defect, with similar dimensions to mine, also observed.
So I'm wondering, as the inspection in November 2022, the last one before my accident, noted "no actionable defects" if the council will argue it wasn't dangerous at the time of the incident.
Clearly it is not 70mm in depth as I measured it as 200, and owing to the video footage. Unfortunately I'm wondering if the council will just argue that it wasn't there when they measured the road. Now I have google street view to prove the defect had begun to form by august 2018, but as the threshold is 50mm, they could argue it hadn't reached this by the november inspection. On the other hand, a 150mm increase is some increase (21 inches a month).
Clearly, the pothole was dangerous and I think the video footage is immensely useful, but I'm wondering if that will count for nothing if the council deny knowing about the pothole. There were so many potholes reported on that section. The coordinates of the pothole 140mm in depth and the description match my one, but I'm wondering if it isn't.
I requested a new batch of FOI data on the road inspection in August.
THREE potholes including mine noted.
I'm now starting to wonder if the "verge overrun" measured as 140mm in depth is actually a different pothole, the one which was first noted in 2019. The new FOI data I got said it had been fixed through a sign being placed there, which was there when I went to measure my defect in August.
There is a second defect, with similar dimensions to mine, also observed.
So I'm wondering, as the inspection in November 2022, the last one before my accident, noted "no actionable defects" if the council will argue it wasn't dangerous at the time of the incident.
Clearly it is not 70mm in depth as I measured it as 200, and owing to the video footage. Unfortunately I'm wondering if the council will just argue that it wasn't there when they measured the road. Now I have google street view to prove the defect had begun to form by august 2018, but as the threshold is 50mm, they could argue it hadn't reached this by the november inspection. On the other hand, a 150mm increase is some increase (21 inches a month).
Clearly, the pothole was dangerous and I think the video footage is immensely useful, but I'm wondering if that will count for nothing if the council deny knowing about the pothole. There were so many potholes reported on that section. The coordinates of the pothole 140mm in depth and the description match my one, but I'm wondering if it isn't.
Potholes don't just appear overnight now do they? They are just trying to get out of paying up.
I know, but if I've said in my initial statement the council knew. That's because there is another even larger pothole literally a metre or two away from the one I hit. With similar dimensions to my one, and the fact on the track it site they were on the same stretch, I only assumed it was the same one. Can I really make a statement of truth saying they knew?
I knew it existed back in 2018 as street view shows but I cannot prove the council knew it needed repairing. As they noted "no actionable defects" at the last inspection prior to my accident.
This should be an easy case to win but I'm just nervous about getting caught out and being reprimanded
You can't say for definite that they knew, but they should have noticed if they are that close together.
Yes but in my particulars of case I said they did know, and cited the data for a pothole which I now don't believe is the one I hit.
Where does that leave me when doing my witness statement ? It looks pretty suspect if I then suddenly change my mind.
I'm close to 100% certain they knew. But now it seems like other than Google street view, I don't have much evidence to back this up.
At the minute our council has a repair team out and they take a before and after picture. As far as you are aware they knew about the pothole, that is all you should think on.
It seems like they only record defects when they are "actionable". Now they are only measured once every October. This applies even when defects are detected on ad hoc inspections , they will not be recorded on the next inspection
It is meant to be inspected on foot but I found in the foi data for the most recent inspection it was in part on vehicle due to no pavement. The section of the road where my pothole was on had no pavement . So it's more than possible they missed it.
I may have a witness who hit their car in early may but as they didn't report it I'm not sure if they're any use.
Like tonysaid don't they have photos (you could get) of holes they were aware of and had designated as actionable;
maybe you could argue that their process is bad if they don't have before & after photos ... can you modify your case and introduce more data, at this point.
how far away was the sign marking the verge one they fixed (and might haved been yours) from yours.
maybe you could argue that their process is bad if they don't have before & after photos ... can you modify your case and introduce more data, at this point.
how far away was the sign marking the verge one they fixed (and might haved been yours) from yours.
like a a few metres away.
dist.png
drive.google.com
The puddle of water going across the carriageway is the one you can see, the one towards the edge is the one I hit.
They definitely didn't fix mine. They marked it as "fixed" I believe, but when I went there it wasn't fixed. But maybe they were talking about some other ones. The location they've given for them is so difficult to understand as all the potholes have basically the same location.
I will make an FOI asking if they recorded non actionable defects but I'm 99% sure, knowing this council, they won't.
Just had my claim rejected 2 damaged wheels from pothole April last year. I would fight it but I don't have the time. I got the wheels repaired and my boss sorted the bill.
They could have rejected the claim a lot sooner but Surrey CC move with the speed of a glacier.
They could have rejected the claim a lot sooner but Surrey CC move with the speed of a glacier.
This is probably the same for most councils, so they don't have to pay out.