Pot Hole damage - council response

[islandgirl]

I wonder if anyone has any suggestions please...family member hit a horrendous pothole on a fairly narrow road which they were unable to avoid due to oncoming traffic. Evidence and a claim for a new tyre sent to the local council responsible for the roads in that area. They are, as expected refusing to pay the claim. Their response says that the pothole was inspected early in January and the defect noted. It was classed as a priority to be repaired within 28 days. It was repaired early in Feb. Needless to say our incident occured between inspection and repair. They say that the fact they conformed to "statutory inspection requirements" gives them a "statutory defence" and no negligence or breach of statutory duty has occured so they will not be paying the claim. As you can imagine I am not happy with this. Any suggestions as to a reply please? To be honest I have accepted that I will probably not get the money back but I wish to make them jump through as many hoops as possible and cost them time and effort in response as a pothole of this nature should have been repaired immediately and not left almost a month. Perhaps they will think twice before leaving such a dangerous hole next time. Any suggestions very welcome thank you.

[echat11]

a) Send the Council a Subject Access Request, you really need to make a general request. The Council has a Statutory Defence, so they could fix the facts around that.

b) You need to find 'anomalies' in their report and repair procedures. How quickly have they been repaired? Is 28 days correct? Have other claims been paid out?

c) That pot hole was reported, the Council must of inspected it, after inspecting it did they mark it in any way? i.e. a fluorescent large X.

d) If they haven't marked it, how were you supposed to it was there and a potential 'danger / hazard' to you?

A random Council site -

https://www.bedford.gov.uk/parking-r...ments/potholes

[islandgirl]

Thank you. No it was not marked. I have photos from the day of the incident with no marking at all. I agree - there should have been some notification for drivers. They are saying they have 28 days under the law to fix it hence the statutory defence. Inspected 2nd of the month repaired 4th of the following month. They say because they have 28 working days to fix they have no liability. They have sent proof of inspections which helps not one bit! Looking at the link you kindly provided Echat I would say it would class as dangerous and therefore should not have been part of the standard programme but an urgent repair. It is a narrow road - when there is oncoming traffic drivers have no choice but to drive close to the edge of the road and straight into the hole.

[PallasAthena]

It's a Freedom of Information request you need to make to find out about their procedures in general. You'll need to think carefully what information you ask for. You can do a data protection SAR as well (separately) but that will only give you what they hold about you/ your family member personally.

Councils should have on their website their procedure for dealing with potholes. Look at that very carefully. If you can show that they haven't complied with their published policy will help your argument. Does their policy actually say 28 WORKING days or just 28 days? Although in this case that may not make a significant difference.

It's not quite that there are statutory limits. Councils are required to to publish the time limits they have set in their own potholes policy but councils don't all have to have identical time limits.

The 'statutory defence' they refer to is s58 Highways Act 1980

https://www.araglaw.co.uk/blog/what-...-on-your-road/

[echat11]

What did they provide? It would be interesting to find out why they deemed it not dangerous.

'They have sent proof of inspections which helps not one bit!'

The two authorities on pot holes are Rod Stewart and Arnold Schwarzenegger, both have repaired pot holes.

[echat11]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...0losing%20cash.

[islandgirl]

I have written back quoting the appropriate Highways Act sections and asked them exactly why they did not deem it dangerous at the time. I have explained that they had a duty to either repair as an emergency or alert road users to the danger. They cannot therefore use the statutory defence. Watch this space!