Pothole question

tacticalx86 said:
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.
Click to expand...
the cambridgeshire map where i've reported pot holes has an underlayed OS map + zoom, so permits a lot of precision for location.

next time i report the ones i see regularly that are growing again , and should now be actionable, I may check it's location with watch/phone gps.

but still seems reasonable that your council would have before/after photos - I know ours get marked with yellow paint when they have been marked for fixing.
 
Thanks for all the help, just currently agonising over what to do. It sounds silly I know, but am genuinely a bit flustered about this.

The way I see it i have the following options

Option A - Make the witness statement, unedited, repeating my assertions made in the particulars of case where I assert the pothole was known about for 4 years, even though I am now fairly certain this is actually a different pothole, based on a description given in the FOI data I aquired yesterday.
Option B - Make the witness statement, but preface it with a document explaining that new information has come to light and I am no longer of the belief that the defect I hit was the one I have evidence of being 140mm in depth in 2019. BUT, argue that this isn't relevant as I have GSV of the defect in august 2018 and it should have been noticed in the five years prior to my accident.
Option C - Discontinue the case. Send an N279 form, or make an offer to the solicitors, saying i will discontinue the case and make no other claim about the same defect on the condition of me facing no fees.

I see Option A as very risky as I feel like I would be lying as I am almost entirely convinced that the 2019 defect was not the one I hit, and obviously lying in court is a serious matter even if it's less serious in the civil courts, definitely unreasonable behaviour.

Option B is less risky but it undermines the particulars of case and the defence could argue that I need to amend it etc, or that there is no case to answer for and it should be thrown out.

Option C is the nuclear failsafe which I am leaning to at the moment , but it's not clear if I'd be immune from any costs.

My case is 100% legitimate and I believe I still stand a good chance of winning, but the new information has changed things and has made me uncomfortable about making a witness statement corroborating the particulars of case
 
Last edited:
BUDFORCE said:
@tacticalx86

Just hold your nerves man.

End of the day they didn't maintain the roads correctly and as a result your car got damaged which cost you money.

You pay for the roads to be maintained.

Morally you are doing nothing wrong.

You got this.
Click to expand...
I know, but morally right and legally right are two different things.

It's just the question of what to put in my witness statement, as i feel repeating what i did in the particulars if the pothole they knew about WASN't the one i hi, then i can't say that they did know.
 
no expert but you hit a pothole that should not have been there whether pothole 1,2 or 3 so the council did not do there job, . from what i read of this your worried about saying it was pothole 1 and then saying noooooooo it was pothole 2 either way there wrong.
i understand you being worried about giving a statement , but again you are not sure which one did the damage, its for them to prove.
if its worrying you too much you may need to have a word with a solicitor just to ease your mind.
 
Last edited:
I never got round to putting in a claim for my tyre. In all honesty I'd have been more motivated if the replacement hadn't gone straight on the company credit card. Anyway, that particular pothole has been filled and reopened TWICE since then. I drive a different way home to avoid it as it is on a bend so you need to remember exactly where it is and hug the curb!

I wish I had put a claim in if only to add to the persuasion to the county council that it's better to fix these things properly than keep sending in 'Bodge it and Scarper & sons' to stomp some tarmac in the hole.
 
tacticalx86 said:
I see Option A as very risky as I feel like I would be lying as I am almost entirely convinced that the 2019 defect was not the one I hit, and obviously lying in court is a serious matter even if it's less serious in the civil courts, definitely unreasonable behaviour.

Option B is less risky but it undermines the particulars of case and the defence could argue that I need to amend it etc, or that there is no case to answer for and it should be thrown out.

Option C is the nuclear failsafe which I am leaning to at the moment , but it's not clear if I'd be immune from any costs.
Click to expand...

what is your liability if there were costs ?

Don't see an issue putting in additional data from foi - shows you are credible, even if defence probably already aware of that data
pot-holes redevelop within a year (our local 50cmx25cmx15 deep anyway has been re-born in 9months ) so suggesting they had really been there unrepaired since 2019 doesn't sound credible.

the foi showed no intervention or reports after last inspection of nov 22 ? preceeding your damage aug 23

[just looked - our cambs system doesn't show mine I reported 18months ago - which were not large enough /no further action, then.
but if their system doesn't keep that info internally, for foi disclosure, I'd say that is negligent
]

[
e: looking through some of the reports - wondering if these people don't remember from day to day where pot-holes are , for rainy days.
4 pot Holes right on the junction Full of water. Can not see them until you hit one in a BMW 6 Series Cracking the near side wheel . BMW new Wheel needed Will be claiming from Council . Our Cars have to be road worthy BUT the roads are not worthy to put our cars ON !!!!!!
]
 
Last edited:
I feel like my wheels must be like 50p pieces at the moment. The number of significant potholes I’ve hit in the last few weeks is ridiculous. Will find out at my MOT and service later in the month.
 
jpaul said:
what is your liability if there were costs ?

Don't see an issue putting in additional data from foi - shows you are credible, even if defence probably already aware of that data
pot-holes redevelop within a year (our local 50cmx25cmx15 deep anyway has been re-born in 9months ) so suggesting they had really been there unrepaired since 2019 doesn't sound credible.

the foi showed no intervention or reports after last inspection of nov 22 ? preceeding your damage aug 23

[just looked - our cambs system doesn't show mine I reported 18months ago - which were not large enough /no further action, then.
but if their system doesn't keep that info internally, for foi disclosure, I'd say that is negligent
]

[
e: looking through some of the reports - wondering if these people don't remember from day to day where pot-holes are , for rainy days.
4 pot Holes right on the junction Full of water. Can not see them until you hit one in a BMW 6 Series Cracking the near side wheel . BMW new Wheel needed Will be claiming from Council . Our Cars have to be road worthy BUT the roads are not worthy to put our cars ON !!!!!!
]
Click to expand...

Yes. The thing is the council are only obliged to inspect roads at certain intervals. As this was a country lane, inspections are annual. So the council would argue that they inspected the road as frequently as they should hafve per their own guidance.

Small claims courts - not usually any fees involved. But if you lose (or even if you win), and the defendant and judge believe you acted unreasonably throughout the process, you could be liable for some money. If they say i was lying, or made a false claim etc etc it could be thousands of pounds in legal fees.

I spoke to the solicitors, they agreed in return for dropping the case, they will not charge me for the legal fees.

I plan to write something or make a video about the whole process because I believe it's relevant and there isn't enough information out there.

It's seldom as simple as "there was a pothole, my vehicle was damaged, the council is at fault". The warning signs for me were when the council seemed destined to continue with the claim. The pothole was absolutely unacceptable, yes they should have known, they certainly graded it wrong, but I've realised its better to lose face and look a bit embarassed then to be stubborn and guided by righteousness and lose only to find i am now out of pocket.
 
My point is that if other people had notified the council of defects post nov22 (and they should be logging those for foi access)
there should be an obligation to assess and triage them for fixing.
 
jpaul said:
My point is that if other people had notified the council of defects post nov22 (and they should be logging those for foi access)
there should be an obligation to assess and triage them for fixing.
Click to expand...

How the actual blithering **** do you manage to write like a normal person sometimes, yet other times you write like you're having a tug and a stroke at the same time :confused:
 
Diddums said:
How the actual blithering ****
Click to expand...
do you have a small smartphone where you cannot follow thread context (part shared with johnny)

e: I mean you see a lot of ridiculous threads where the same point is repeated multiple times because ? people have no memory/attention span
 
Last edited:
jpaul said:
do you have a small smartphone where you cannot follow thread context (part shared with johnny)

e: I mean you see a lot of ridiculous threads where the same point is repeated multiple times because ? people have no memory/attention span
Click to expand...

I just speak and write generic english; not wordsoup latin Shakesqueer. I take amusment in thinking of the film Inside Out, its its like Vatican city up there with all the popes fighting for a go on the keyboard.

I mean you even add a letter h where its not present.
 
Diddums said:
Where's the  italics and random musings halfway through your post


e: did that donkey ever finish eating the hamster i wonder

gosh the clouds look like fiat logos today
Click to expand...
I read though it with no problem understanding what had been written or the context.
 
jpaul said:
My point is that if other people had notified the council of defects post nov22 (and they should be logging those for foi access)
there should be an obligation to assess and triage them for fixing.
Click to expand...
There was no evidence of them being notified of this after november 22nd and before my accident. Obviously their inspection was flawed after mine and they should have fixed it, but they still wouldn't have paid out compensation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom