View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently June 29th, 2025, 5:39 am



Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 A wheely irritating incident 
Author Message
Firing on two.
User avatar

Joined: February 11th, 2009, 12:32 am
Posts: 3324
Location: Chichester, West Sussex
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
Well I had a reply from the local council.
Quote:
Prior to your unfortunate incident, the last routine inspection was carried out on the 22nd December 2009. At that time a defect was identifies...and scheduled for repair within 28 days.

Under section 58 of the highways act 1980 there is a stautpory defence upon which the council is able to rely where it can be shown that there is in operation a reasonable system of inspection and repair. I consider that in this instance the Council would be able to rely upon that defense.

Naturally I regret... I have every sympathy... I am of the view that this did not involve negligence on the part of the Council.

:evil:
Not happy.

Other point raised in the letter were that:
Quote:
for any claim against the council to be successful it is neccesary to demonstrate that the damage was not only caused by a dangeroius defect in the highway, but also that it resulted in negligence on the part of the council.


My argument is that there was no sign posting, sprayed markers on the ground or anything to say it was there.

I also went to re visit the site of the hole today and found that about 3/4 of the hole has been filled in, but the rest of it is still very holey...
Attachment:
Pot holes.jpg


I'm also going to argue that the council clearly hasn't demonstrated a reasonable system of repair as clearly there is still damage there.

Thinking about it, what I should have done after hitting the pot hole, is stopped immediately and called an ambulance complaining of excruciating pain in my neck and back. Then phoned one of these "have you been injured" companies and gone about it that way. Stupidly, I thought honesty was the best way to go about it, how naive I am


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


February 1st, 2010, 2:14 pm
Profile
Firing on two.
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2008, 9:40 pm
Posts: 3332
Location: Surrounded by 2cvs...
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
samfieldhouse wrote:
Well I had a reply from the local council.
Quote:
Prior to your unfortunate incident, the last routine inspection was carried out on the 22nd December 2009. At that time a defect was identifies...and scheduled for repair within 28 days.

Under section 58 of the highways act 1980 there is a stautpory defence upon which the council is able to rely where it can be shown that there is in operation a reasonable system of inspection and repair. I consider that in this instance the Council would be able to rely upon that defense.

Naturally I regret... I have every sympathy... I am of the view that this did not involve negligence on the part of the Council.

:evil:
Not happy.


So how much council tax would you like to pay, in order to provide sufficient road repair teams to identify and repair every single pothole within <say> four hours of it forming?

Quote:
Other point raised in the letter were that:
Quote:
for any claim against the council to be successful it is neccesary to demonstrate that the damage was not only caused by a dangeroius defect in the highway, but also that it resulted in negligence on the part of the council.


My argument is that there was no sign posting, sprayed markers on the ground or anything to say it was there.


None of which removes your ultimate responsibility - as the driver - to look where you're going.

Quote:
I also went to re visit the site of the hole today and found that about 3/4 of the hole has been filled in, but the rest of it is still very holey...


They've certainly cocked that up, and it's going to be back in no time, but it doesn't make any difference to your claim.

Quote:
I'm also going to argue that the council clearly hasn't demonstrated a reasonable system of repair as clearly there is still damage there.


If you hit it again today and damaged a wheel as a result, you may have a case. But whether they repaired it properly or not doesn't affect a previous incident. They have repaired it (probably) within that 28 days, though. They may well have done what they know full well to be a temporary patch, solely to reduce the risk until the weather improves enough to do a proper long-term repair.

Quote:
Thinking about it, what I should have done after hitting the pot hole, is stopped immediately and called an ambulance complaining of excruciating pain in my neck and back. Then phoned one of these "have you been injured" companies and gone about it that way. Stupidly, I thought honesty was the best way to go about it, how naive I am


A deliberate fraud is never a particularly good way to go about anything, other than getting some free board and lodging for a bit. Nor would an injury affect the council's liability (or lack thereof), merely the size of payout if they WERE found to be liable.

_________________
Image
Zookeeper of a miscellany of motorised silliness - from 0.75bhp to 9ft tall - now living life on the road in an old VW.
http://WhereverTheRoadGoes.com


February 1st, 2010, 2:43 pm
Profile YIM WWW
2CV Fan

Joined: February 23rd, 2009, 3:57 am
Posts: 36
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
I think you will have to prove the council knew about this pothole and had a reasonable amount of time to repair it before your accident. There are a few report-a-pothole websites scattered around the internet so if you could find the hole had already been reported to the council that would strengthen your case against the council.

I am not a lawyer though and would not claim to have any real understanding of the law. The letter could just be a standard council "fob off" letter just to deter half-hearted claimants.

I have known friends who managed successful claims in the past against councils for poor road surfaces, but not the details.

Miarke

_________________
Image


February 1st, 2010, 2:45 pm
Profile
Firing on two.
User avatar

Joined: February 11th, 2009, 12:32 am
Posts: 3324
Location: Chichester, West Sussex
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
toomany2cvs wrote:
samfieldhouse wrote:
My argument is that there was no sign posting, sprayed markers on the ground or anything to say it was there.


None of which removes your ultimate responsibility - as the driver - to look where you're going.


True, but given it was dark and the hole was obscured by a puddle and the sheer size of the hole, a sign or road marker would have been nice and improved the safety of the lane.

The point is, they knew it was there, and it was very large. They could have put some cones round it or a sign or something.

Im not trying to get something for nothing here, I'm genuinely indignant that I've now got two unusable rims from hitting that pot hole.


February 1st, 2010, 2:49 pm
Profile
Firing on two.
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2008, 9:40 pm
Posts: 3332
Location: Surrounded by 2cvs...
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
samfieldhouse wrote:
True, but given it was dark


If your lights don't allow you to see as far or as well as you can in daylight, you're meant to slow down...

Quote:
and the hole was obscured by a puddle and the sheer size of the hole, a sign or road marker would have been nice and improved the safety of the lane.


Do you know for sure that they didn't put one there, and some pillock nicked it? There's certainly at least one gone missing from an open-cast mine in the middle of a road round here.

_________________
Image
Zookeeper of a miscellany of motorised silliness - from 0.75bhp to 9ft tall - now living life on the road in an old VW.
http://WhereverTheRoadGoes.com


February 1st, 2010, 3:00 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Firing on two.
User avatar

Joined: February 11th, 2009, 12:32 am
Posts: 3324
Location: Chichester, West Sussex
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
Blimey Adrian you're a harder sell than the local council :lol:

samfieldhouse wrote:
Im not trying to get something for nothing here, I'm genuinely indignant that I've now got two unusable rims from hitting that pot hole.


It's not lke I'm saying my suspension is shot or my super chavy 24" chrome rims were scratched as I cruised at 50 in a 40 zone.

I was well under the speed limit, I'm quite happy to replace the shocks myself but it would be so nice if they just said, "sorry you cute old car got damaged, here's £100 to get yourself some new rims from Ecas." :(


February 1st, 2010, 3:08 pm
Profile
Firing on two.
User avatar

Joined: December 26th, 2008, 9:40 pm
Posts: 3332
Location: Surrounded by 2cvs...
Post Re: A wheely irritating incident
samfieldhouse wrote:
Blimey Adrian you're a harder sell than the local council :lol:


<shrug> You don't pay council tax yourself, do you...? I do... About £180 a month.

It's more than doubled since we moved in, and I'd rather it didn't go TOO much higher, thanks - especially if some of the rise is because of people who don't look where they're going...

Quote:
I was well under the speed limit


Just because a sign says a certain speed is legal, doesn't mean that it's safe or appropriate to do that speed. Equally, just because a sign says a certain speed ISN'T legal, doesn't mean it isn't safe or appropriate...

_________________
Image
Zookeeper of a miscellany of motorised silliness - from 0.75bhp to 9ft tall - now living life on the road in an old VW.
http://WhereverTheRoadGoes.com


February 1st, 2010, 3:19 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.