Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

[des8]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Ok so you do need to get out there and measure those holes: length, width and dep

On this site (http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/e...d-highways.cfm) you can find the latest Code of Practice for maintaining roads.
It is only advisory, and very long and boring. The most interesting section for you is appendix B.
The minimum depth that a pothole has to reach before repair becomes mandatory is 40mm and 150mmwide

Whilst looking for the code of practice I came across this site (http://www.potholes.co.uk/claims/step_by_step_guide) which you might find useful.

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Ok so you do need to get out there and measure those holes: length, width and dep

On this site (http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/e...d-highways.cfm) you can find the latest Code of Practice for maintaining roads.
It is only advisory, and very long and boring. The most interesting section for you is appendix B.
The minimum depth that a pothole has to reach before repair becomes mandatory is 40mm and 150mmwide

Whilst looking for the code of practice I came across this site (http://www.potholes.co.uk/claims/step_by_step_guide) which you might find useful.

Thank you very much for the useful links.
I may not even need to bother with this as I had thought ahead. I went out and took pictures on the same evening it occurred. I used my water bottle as a measure -don't ask, the road was really busy and didn't want to hang about for longer than necessary, so the water bottle did the trick before I was killed. See below (clearly larger than the measurements you suggest).....

[des8]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Well done that man!
I suspect the council will try and claim the hole worsened between their Jan inspection and your incident.
However, although it does not prove the hole was dangerous in Jan, the fact that the hole even now has still not been repaired indicates the council don't take their responsibilities seriously.
For motorcyclists holes that size are lethal when flooded. Get more photos with a camera with date.

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Well done that man!
I suspect the council will try and claim the hole worsened between their Jan inspection and your incident.
However, although it does not prove the hole was dangerous in Jan, the fact that the hole even now has still not been repaired indicates the council don't take their responsibilities seriously.
For motorcyclists holes that size are lethal when flooded. Get more photos with a camera with date.

Ok, I will do. Although my pictures don't have a date visible, I am an IT guy and the files themselves, digitally have the date and time stamped into them in the exif data, so I would be very confident in going to court with these and 100% saying they were taken when I said they were, and I would be happy to release the original files for analysis.

I will get back down to the pot holes and take more, and will see if I can get a time stamp on the images for convenience this time.

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Good morning, apologies it has taken me so long to get back. This morning, I went back and measured the pot holes.
Number one measured, 210cm in diameter one way and 34cm the other way with a depth of 8.7cm.

Number two measured 150cm in diameter one way and 30cm the other way with a depth of 7cm.

What do you think?

[des8]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Having looked back through the thread I notice that the council apparently record potholes that have measurements as small as 1.5mm & 0,3mm (post 12).
Do they actually use a micrometer :confused2:

More seriously I assume the larger measures refer to the depth of the potholes.
If the depths were under 40mm it would probably not be worth pursuing a claim.

You now need to respond to the Council, stating you do not believe they have satisfied Section 58 of he 1980 Highways Act.

You believe the size and depth of the potholes require the defects to be categorised "Category 1" under The National Guideline 9.4.18 i.e. "require prompt attention because they represent an immediate or imminent hazard"
This is in line with Appendix B of The National Guidelines (B3.4)
Include your photographs and refer to their own reports.

Do NOT at this stage threaten court action.
You want them to come back with an offer, and they might not if you start threatening.
Be realistic and be prepared to accept an offer, even if it is not a full reimbursement.

And how did you get on with the wheel wobble? (post 20)

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Having looked back through the thread I notice that the council apparently record potholes that have measurements as small as 1.5mm & 0,3mm (post 12).
Do they actually use a micrometer :confused2:

More seriously I assume the larger measures refer to the depth of the potholes.
If the depths were under 40mm it would probably not be worth pursuing a claim.

You now need to respond to the Council, stating you do not believe they have satisfied Section 58 of he 1980 Highways Act.

You believe the size and depth of the potholes require the defects to be categorised "Category 1" under The National Guideline 9.4.18 i.e. "require prompt attention because they represent an immediate or imminent hazard"
This is in line with Appendix B of The National Guidelines (B3.4)
Include your photographs and refer to their own reports.

Do NOT at this stage threaten court action.
You want them to come back with an offer, and they might not if you start threatening.
Be realistic and be prepared to accept an offer, even if it is not a full reimbursement.

And how did you get on with the wheel wobble? (post 20)

Golly, it has been a while again. Thank you so much for all of your help. I really do appreciate it. I have been terribly busy with work, so have left this on the back burner until the Christmas holidays (considering how long it took the council to respond to me, I probably have another 2-3 months before I would be anywhere close to the time it took them to get back to me). I very much hope you had an enjoyable Christmas. We have been lucky, no snow for us yet, just lots of ice on the roads.

I have re-visited the pot holes again to take photos, as the council actually closed the road in question for repairs for 5 days, yet they did nothing!

I have used your post as a guide and written the following, can you tell me if you think this is acceptable as I am very keen to whisk it off to them. - I am at a loss as to how they think these are not dangerous, and really need to get something sorted on this before a biker or similar comes a cropper.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I refer to your previous correspondence regarding the above matter. I would like to advise you that I very much reject *** Council’s denial of liability.

At the time of the incident, the pot holes in question measured approximately 2 meters, by 0.29 meters, with a depth of 6cm and 1.45 metres by 0.28 metes, with a depth of 3.9cm respectively.

Since the incident, I have re-visited both defects again with a (can’t think of the word someone who is not bothered by the outcome either way but was there when I measured), and found the measurements to be:
2.10 meters, by 0.34 meters, with a depth of 9cm and 1.5 meters by 0.30 meters, with a depth of 6.8cm.

It is my belief that the size and depth of both of the road defects highlighted in my original claim require the said defects to be categorised as “Category 1” under the National guideline 9.4.18 i.e. “require prompt attention because they represent an immediate or imminent hazard”.
This is in line with Appendix B of The National Guidelines (B3.4).

Please see herewith photographs, which were taken in November 2014 and very clearly highlight how large both defects are. I have also logged in my case file that for 5 days from 8^th December 2014, *** Council, Environment, Sustainability & Highways operated a temporary road closure (under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 14(2), on the piece of highway in question. This would have provided a very convenient opportunity to address both of these defects, though I am extremely disappointed to note that neither have been addressed. Since this 5-day closure, I have revisited both defects again and include herewith images of the repair work, or lack thereof the highways department carried out on both defects in question. In addition, I noted that there appear to have been no highways repair work carried out on the piece of highway in question, which begs the question, why was the road closed in the first place?

I urge you to reconsider your decision to deny liability based on the above evidence, and would strongly urge you to re-classify the defects in question as Category 1.

I look very forward to your expeditious response to this matter.

[des8]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Hi and best wishes for the New Year.

"independent third party who will corroborate the observations"

Post and hope

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Hi and best wishes for the New Year.

"independent third party who will corroborate the observations"

Post and hope

Des, as always, thanks so much.
You have been a wonderful help and I really can't say thanks enough. Let's see what they come back with. No doubt it will be in several months time, but I will post up any progress or news.

Best wishes for the new year to you and your family also! :santa_wink:

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Des,
I should start a new thread for this really, but you just couldn't make it up... no update on my letter to the council, but the road in question was closed this week from Monday to Wednesday - no warning, just closed. I had to take an alternative route and hit another pot hole so hard that the bulb from within my headlight lamp has fallen out and the steering is pulling strongly to the near side.

This time I carry a measure and a camera. Take a look.......

[IMG][/IMG][IMG][/IMG][IMG][/IMG]

[des8]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Glad I don't live in your area! Nothing personal

Have car checked and meanwhile put in another claim.
You' be on first name terms with them soon..

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

Glad I don't live in your area! Nothing personal

Have car checked and meanwhile put in another claim.
You' be on first name terms with them soon..

We do seem to have very poor roads, or rather a poor council when it comes to caring for them.
I have not put in a second claim yet, thankfully the wheel was ok and the garage have managed to get the light bulb back in, but I am keeping a very close eye on it.

Back to my original one. You may remember that I sent the council legal department a second letter asking them to reconsider their denial of responsibility.
I sent this on the 31st of December 2014. How long do you think I should wait before contacting the small claims court?

[wales01man]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

I suggest a LBA to the legal department and copy to the CEO this has gone on to long

[henrygregory]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

I suggest a LBA to the legal department and copy to the CEO this has gone on to long

Thank you for your kind post. What is an LBA and by CEO, do you mean the council CEO?

[wales01man]

Re: Council Section 58 Highways Defence for Pot Hole

LBA letter be action prior to commencing proceedings and yes Council Ceo plenty of info on LBAs on here