Potholes and cones

[Baron von Lotsov]

That's OK if you don't mind losing your no claims discount. The loss of the NCD may lose you as much as you gain. In my case there was £158 of damage and I have a £150 excess, so I would get £6 and lose my NCD.



The get out for the council is that they regularly inspect the roads and maintain them when they have got to a level "requiring intervention".

In my case I can prove the same defect was there 1 month later, and again 13 months later, so I can prove that even if they inspect, they don't repair.

You never know with court cases, so I'll not raise my hopes. Some people say they back out at the last minute when they realise the cost of defending the case.

Well having been in those shoes, it is a case of you and the judge. You say your bit, the judge has all the evidence you have lodged already and has looked through it, and then he will quiz you. Judges though are experts at telling if you are lying, and they will spot things, like "could you not have done this?" and so on. I've got a feeling you should be OK. If they had left that pothole there for 13 months then the judge will more than likely consider the council has a duty to regularly check roads, and also what are the chances of it being reported by another road user. If it were a busy road then the chance is almost certain. On your side is the fact a pothole could kill someone, hence regular inspections are a must.

[Churchill]

True some may lose their no claims bonus mine is protected I could not be bothered to take them the Court, the threat should  in IMO be enough to make them see sense and cough up, I hope you win

[Barry]

Not an expert on Law , however IMHO



The easiest way to claim for damage to your vehicle if the Council rejects you claim is via your Insurance Company that is what you pay them lots of money every year for saves you all the hassle, the get out clause for Councils is if they did not know about the pothole

That's OK if you don't mind losing your no claims discount. The loss of the NCD may lose you as much as you gain. In my case there was £158 of damage and I have a £150 excess, so I would get £6 and lose my NCD.



The get out for the council is that they regularly inspect the roads and maintain them when they have got to a level "requiring intervention".

In my case I can prove the same defect was there 1 month later, and again 13 months later, so I can prove that even if they inspect, they don't repair.

You never know with court cases, so I'll not raise my hopes. Some people say they back out at the last minute when they realise the cost of defending the case.

[Churchill]

Not an expert on Law , however IMHO



The easiest way to claim for damage to your vehicle if the Council rejects you claim is via your Insurance Company that is what you pay them lots of money every year for saves you all the hassle, the get out clause for Councils is if they did not know about the pothole

[Baron von Lotsov]

In July 2018 my car was damaged on a piece of road in Herefordshire County and I claimed for the damage to a wheel and tyre. They refused to pay out and said they took all reasonable checks to maintain the roads. I returned to the same location a year later, to find the same road defect in the same condition which has not been repaired. I took photographs and measurements, collated a file of evidence - and I will be having my day in court in the new year.  :thup:

Well done. I was going to say, their excuse is invalid because it is a case of vicarious liability.



I just looked it up regarding highway cases and found this case:

In Griffiths v Liverpool Corporation [1966] 2 All ER 1015, Diplock LJ referred to what he described as two crucial differences between a liability in negligence (for misfeasance) and the statutory liability under what was then the section 44(1) of the Highways Act 1959 (for non-feasance). He said:



'To succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove, inter alia:



        that the defendant had been guilty of lack of reasonable care, and

        that such lack of reasonable care was the cause of the injury to him



In an action under the statute against a highway authority for injury sustained from a danger on a highway, the plaintiff need prove neither of these things in order to succeed. Unless the highway authority proves that it did take reasonable care, the statutory defence under [what is now s 58(1) of the Highways Act 1980] is not available to it all.'

https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/lexisnexis/559-lexis-lg/lexis/localgov/litigation/32064-standards-of-highways-maintenance">https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ... aintenance">https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/lexisnexis/559-lexis-lg/lexis/localgov/litigation/32064-standards-of-highways-maintenance

[Churchill]

I made one mistake in not saying (with present company excepted) few good people now appear to want to work for councils. Those that have been there for years may well be excellent and well suited.

However I dispute your claims about the standard of work and the timeliness of direct "skilled" employees and contractors.

Main roads seem OK-ish, but not 100%. Most problems are with local roads — a significant number of which are important streets for local businesses and residents. The workmanship on their repairs and upkeep has deteriorated considerably over the years I've been taking notice.

And traffic flow planning appears to be undertaken by people with little local knowledge or the ability to appreciate the needs of residents, pedestrians, schools and businesses — that's one area where observation could often result in simple inexpensive re-routing instead of costly construction work...

I know different from personal knowledge and experience , we will have to agree to disagree

[patman post]

Having recently retired after working for a London Council as with all Councils jobs have been pared to the bone over the last 15 years, any job vacancy that does come up is over subscribed by applicants, so wrong on that score.



As for the two London Councils in that time I have worked for both employ Private Contractors who are constantly employed repairing pavements and roads day in day out, we are talking about many many miles of the public highway that need constant repair especially in the larger London Boroughs



These contractors are not cowboys, who are overseen by experienced fully qualified Highways Officers every penny spent has to be accounted for, what you base your sweeping statement about management I have no idea

I made one mistake in not saying (with present company excepted) few good people now appear to want to work for councils. Those that have been there for years may well be excellent and well suited.

However I dispute your claims about the standard of work and the timeliness of direct "skilled" employees and contractors.

Main roads seem OK-ish, but not 100%. Most problems are with local roads — a significant number of which are important streets for local businesses and residents. The workmanship on their repairs and upkeep has deteriorated considerably over the years I've been taking notice.

And traffic flow planning appears to be undertaken by people with little local knowledge or the ability to appreciate the needs of residents, pedestrians, schools and businesses — that's one area where observation could often result in simple inexpensive re-routing instead of costly construction work...

[Churchill]

The problem seems to be that few people want to work for councils or the contractors they use because expenditure is pared to the bone. Result is too often useless staff, run by useless managers used only to ticking boxes and using the least amount of the cheapest materials.

Same is true of cleaning and maintenance in the NHS...

Having recently retired after working for a London Council as with all Councils jobs have been pared to the bone over the last 15 years, any job vacancy that does come up is over subscribed by applicants, so wrong on that score.



As for the two London Councils in that time I have worked for both employ Private Contractors who are constantly employed repairing pavements and roads day in day out, we are talking about many many miles of the public highway that need constant repair especially in the larger London Boroughs



These contractors are not cowboys, who are overseen by experienced fully qualified Highways Officers every penny spent has to be accounted for, what you base your sweeping statement about management I have no idea

[patman post]

Oh how I long for the days of yesteryear back in the 70's when local Councils were grossly over manned, over spent ever year, had debts almost as a big as a small country, staff retiring with 2/3rd final year pensions,  :roll:

The problem seems to be that few people want to work for councils or the contractors they use because expenditure is pared to the bone. Result is too often useless staff, run by useless managers used only to ticking boxes and using the least amount of the cheapest materials.

Same is true of cleaning and maintenance in the NHS...

[T00ts]

The trouble is that they don't do a proper repair. All the potholes near me quite small but deep and plentiful were done a couple of weeks ago. One has already opened up again. The tarmac patch looks ok but the hole has appeared joined to it and is now as big as the original. What a complete waste of money.

Now that has to be a case of monkey see monkey do. There can't have been any thought. Now as a woman I would never mend a hole without making the surrounding fabric strong (sewing etc) first. There was a saying - never to put new cloth in old.

[Churchill]

Good Luck, a section of the main road near me is just a series of potholes held together by bits of tarmac, they keep repairing them every few months and within weeks they are back again :roll:

[Barry]

In July 2018 my car was damaged on a piece of road in Herefordshire County and I claimed for the damage to a wheel and tyre. They refused to pay out and said they took all reasonable checks to maintain the roads. I returned to the same location a year later, to find the same road defect in the same condition which has not been repaired. I took photographs and measurements, collated a file of evidence - and I will be having my day in court in the new year.  :thup:

[Churchill]

Oh how I long for the days of yesteryear back in the 70's when local Councils were grossly over manned, over spent ever year, had debts almost as a big as a small country, staff retiring with 2/3rd final year pensions,  :roll:

[Ciaphas]

Johnson pledged £2 billion for potholes — the "biggest ever pothole-filling programme" — John Major set up a cones hotline.

Aren't these really the responsibilities of bodies further down the political food chain, and not topics to be employed by political parties at election time to distract attention from more pressing national concerns for which the government is responsible...?

The old Conservative trick of cutting local government funding and pinning the blame of the consequences on them can also be exploited by swooping in to save the day.

[cromwell]

I assume that central government are responsible for the motorways and there really ought to be a zero tolerance policy on potholes on motorways.

However the surfaces at some busy exits and entries where they get plenty of wear need resurfacing regularly. Motorists wouldn't have to make sudden corrections to avoid the potholes. On the Southern side of the M25 are some of the worst surfaces in the UK, noisy as hell - and scored with 4" wide repairs where cables or something have been put under the road. They never fill them in properly afterwards.

And that's the problem ,they do stuff like making lanes narrower for roadworks and removing cats eyes then when they finish they bodge repair leaving fissures in the road which retain water and when it freezes opens up cracks which turn in to potholes,and of course there is the kamikaze sorry smart motorways that are IMO a disaster.