Pot Holes! Aargh!

Alloy wheels and tyre discussion
User avatar
road warrior
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 2229
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 2:12 pm
Location: Burton On trent

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by road warrior » Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:04 pm

" and that the process could take 3 months whilst decide if there is a claim or not."
i think they mean.. see if we can get away with it...
If you ever think I'm off my rocker.. Just put me back in it and walk away... It's the kindest thing
My wife says I never listen - or something like that.
Mean Steve - makes a sound like a bear with his nuts in a trap.

User avatar
ProfCJJ
Member
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:40 am
Contact:

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by ProfCJJ » Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:07 pm

road warrior wrote:
Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:04 pm
" and that the process could take 3 months whilst decide if there is a claim or not."
i think they mean.. see if we can get away with it...
Oh I’m sure of it! They mentioned contacting all the services companies and whatnot - I’m sure they are going to wiggle!
---
Christopher

Z4 E89 sDrive 30i Msport in Alpine White with Kansas red leather interior and brushed aluminium carbon fibre look.

Image

ihadablackdog
Member
Member
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:56 pm

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by ihadablackdog » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:57 pm

Hi,

Have you had any movement with this?

I hit a crater on Monday causing a fecked tyre and am starting a claim. The online form asks for everything, proof of tax, mot, insurance etc etc. Took pictures of the hole and reported it. Then checked dashcam and found I'd hit a different hole ! Duh! So going back tomorrow in daylight to see if it is still there, or been filled in.

Can send them dashcam footage showing the hole, the colision and then minutes later you hear the "bong" of the tyre pressure warning come on. Trouble is, all the way through is a soundtrack of me swearing like buggery....I was on my own in the car, but it sounds like I'm having a full blown conversation with someone, and not nice language either!
2011 E89 sDrive20i

Online
mmm-five
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 11280
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 1:03 pm
Location: South Liverpool
Contact:

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by mmm-five » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:01 pm

ihadablackdog wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:57 pm
The online form asks for everything, proof of tax, mot, insurance etc etc.
I'd have been tempted to fill those fields in with comments/pictures saying "none of your feckin' business" :P
Trigger’s Z4MC
Some bits now over 163,000 miles, some less than 1,000 miles.
Individual Ruby Black, Individual extended champagne leather, plus many options

Image

User avatar
ProfCJJ
Member
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:40 am
Contact:

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by ProfCJJ » Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:05 pm

So a few days ago I noticed said pot hole had been filled in - none of the other smaller holes around it, just that one. Too much of a coincidence I thought.

Sure enough yesterday I received a letter from the council basically telling me that at they are not liable! What a surprise! Their argument is this:

They say that they do monthly inspections and that this pothole had been picked up in their inspection (indeed when I went online to report the pothole location I had seen a note about this location from about a month earlier). They say the pothole is “actionable” as at 64mm it’s greater than the minimum of 40mm but it’s a “grade 2” meaning that they have given themselves 6 months to fix it since when they reported it. My incident happened about 6 weeks after it was noted and hence it’s within the 6 months window. They then quoted the law to say that in court the council would be expected to mount a legitimate “defence” and their 6 months argument is a legitimate defence - I.e. they have a system in place that they are abiding by and therefore are not liable.

They then invited me to get legal council if I wanted but they are not paying me a penny.

So in essence they are saying “we knew the hole was there, we knew it was deep but not deep “enough”, we gave ourselves 6 months to fix it and it’s unfortunate you drove through it in that 6 months window - that’s your problem”!

What’s curious is how they then quickly filled in just that hole as though it was never there (even though they have another 4 months “grace period” to fill it in properly!)

Getting any legal advice will cost more than the tyre is worth so it looks like they “win” 🤷‍♂️

Ho hum!
---
Christopher

Z4 E89 sDrive 30i Msport in Alpine White with Kansas red leather interior and brushed aluminium carbon fibre look.

Image

Mr Tidy
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 12525
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:18 pm
Location: Berkshire

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by Mr Tidy » Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:10 pm

It's just a thought, but it might be worth posting the details here:- https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&f=10

You might get a bit of free advice, as some of the contributors on there work in the legal profession. :thumbsup:
Coupes because stunning!
Current - Silver Grey MC, Imola Red heated Nappa & carbon trim. H & R Coil-overs, CSL Reps, Strut brace, Nav, cup-holders, DSP Hi-Fi, pdc, cruise, MFSW. E90 330i daily
Gone - Montego Blue
Gone - Ruby Black

User avatar
ProfCJJ
Member
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:40 am
Contact:

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by ProfCJJ » Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:48 am

Mr Tidy wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:10 pm
It's just a thought, but it might be worth posting the details here:- https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/forum.asp?h=0&f=10

You might get a bit of free advice, as some of the contributors on there work in the legal profession. :thumbsup:
Thanks - I am taking a look to see if that could yield anything.

Cheers
---
Christopher

Z4 E89 sDrive 30i Msport in Alpine White with Kansas red leather interior and brushed aluminium carbon fibre look.

Image

User avatar
ProfCJJ
Member
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:40 am
Contact:

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by ProfCJJ » Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:01 pm

So after reading the info "out there" and going through my letter I sent the following to the council:
I write in response to the letter I received from you dated 15th November 2019 regarding the above mentioned claim and your outcome that “… the Council cannot accept liability, …” based on the claim that the council “… has a valid Section 58 defence”. It is unfortunate that you have reached this decision, sadly it is a decision that I do not agree with and will be contesting.

It is true that Section 58 of the Highways Act sets out the criteria that you quote in your letter, but you should know that this does not automatically guarantee a blanket defence for all such claims as mine – and in fact there have been legal precedents set where such Councils’ Defences have been overturned based on the specifics of each case/claim.

There are some clear deficiencies in your argument that I would like you to please make clear, I outline my points below.

You state that the last inspection prior to my incident was on 26/9/2019 and “no actionable defects were flagged at the time of this inspection”. Yet you then say that your inspector had “already attended the location on 30/9/2019 and raised a job for the defect”. It is not clear how on the one hand you say your inspection on 26/9/2019 found no defect yet 4 days later your inspector was there raising a job for the defect. How did that happen? What happened for your inspector to be there on that date? You further state that the “defect in question measured 62mm”.
You state that as a level 2 defect (62 mm) this “allows for a 6 month repair” – you should have more accurately stated that this is actually “Up to 6 months, where possible within 28 days” – which is Southampton City Council’s published policy. You further state that “at the time of the inspector putting his report together the repair was awaiting” with no indication of time-lines – can you expand on this please?
The incident date was 16/10/2019 and I reported it (both online/and over the telephone) on 18/10/2019 (after I went back to photograph the hole and had assessed the damage to my vehicle). At the time of reporting online I had noted that it appeared that the pothole had already been reported “about 1 month prior” and its location noted online and that the pothole had evidence of white paint marks showing that it had been “highlighted” by someone whom I presume are the council/their appointed workers. This seems to be at odds with your point that on the 26/9/2019 inspection nothing was found (yet 4 days later an inspector was their raising a job for the defect). Can this be clarified please?
Finally, today 27/11/2019 I went online the Southampton City Council pothole reporting site and there is a clear marker in the same place that I indicated showing that on 23/10/2019 a pothole was reported that is marked as “7.5cms deep”. So 7 days after my incident/ 5 days after I reported it there is a 75mm deep pothole noted on the website. So this pothole went from not being there on 26/9/2019, to *somehow* being noted @ 62mm and a repair action noted on 30/9/2019, to my reporting on 18/10/2019 (depth unknown as it was unsafe to measure it but photos supplied); to a 75mm deep pothole reported on 23/10/2019. Yet none of this is mentioned by you in your response to me.
Now, I don’t need to tell you that Southampton City Council policy states that “7.5cm or more (Deeper than a tennis ball) “ merits a repair priority of “24 hours or less” – I don’t know the current state of the pothole as I am now avoiding that road to avoid a repeat performance, but it is not illogical to assume that on the date of my incident – just 5 days before - the pothole was deep enough to enter the 75mm category – the damage to my vehicle, the total destruction of a nearly brand new tyre, certainly supports that point.

In short, there are quite a few discrepancies in your argument – from a pothole that was not there to one that warranted an inspector on site 4 days after a routine inspection said there were no issues, quickly escalating to a 75mm one … of course potholes do evolve over time, but this goes precisely to my starting point – that quoting Section 58 of the Highways Act is not sufficient to absolve the council from their duty of safety towards its citizens. These cases are tested on a case by case basis and I intend to show that in this instance the council was negligent in its duties despite its “Section 58” defence.

I contend that there is sufficient evidence to show that this is not as straightforward as you have portrayed it – there are missing steps in your description of events as well as a clear evidence of a pothole that is not “minor” in nature.

I would urge you/ the council to reconsider their decision based on my response and recompense me for the damages incurred (£150.39). Failing that, ahead of my initiating a Small Claims Proceedings against the council, I would kindly request to see the details of the council's road inspection reports relevant to this case (also going further back in time as the paint marks on the ground seem to imply this problem has been around for a while).

Many thanks for your consideration and I look forward to your reply. I would be greatful if you could please acknowledge safe receipt of this communication.
---
Christopher

Z4 E89 sDrive 30i Msport in Alpine White with Kansas red leather interior and brushed aluminium carbon fibre look.

Image

User avatar
Smartbear
Lifer
Lifer
Posts: 10589
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 6:54 pm
Location: In a barn

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by Smartbear » Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:07 pm

Good luck with pursuing this claim, you might need someone to hold this guy down while you nail him to the ground! :P
Rob
Image

e89 Sdrive 20i, plenty of mumbo & good economy-the thinking bears z4
e89 Sdrive 30i, this ones busted, pass me another...
e85 3.0si sold

User avatar
ProfCJJ
Member
Member
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:40 am
Contact:

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by ProfCJJ » Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:51 pm

Smartbear wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:07 pm
Good luck with pursuing this claim, you might need someone to hold this guy down while you nail him to the ground! :P
Rob
Indeed! I imagine they are paying this contractor more per hour to tell me "no" than to just own up and pay out! Certainly if I had to charge for my time in writing all this crap the totals would change. I guess its now beyond just recompense and its about Councils trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities!

I still don't have high hopes ...
---
Christopher

Z4 E89 sDrive 30i Msport in Alpine White with Kansas red leather interior and brushed aluminium carbon fibre look.

Image

User avatar
Phoenixboy
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:07 pm
Location: english riviera

Pot Holes! Aargh!

Post by Phoenixboy » Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:51 am

ProfCJJ wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:51 pm
Smartbear wrote:
Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:07 pm
Good luck with pursuing this claim, you might need someone to hold this guy down while you nail him to the ground! :P
Rob
Indeed! I imagine they are paying this contractor more per hour to tell me "no" than to just own up and pay out! Certainly if I had to charge for my time in writing all this crap the totals would change. I guess its now beyond just recompense and its about Councils trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities!

I still don't have high hopes ...
if nothing else, its fun watching them squirm.
i think they may back down, just to sweep it under the carpet, or in to the hole. :lol:
E89 s drive 30i manual
space grey
19" 296 wheels with goodyears :)
cruise control
m sport seats
stubby
led halo bulbs
z4 forum sticker, for added power.
Gone: E85 Ruby Black 2.5

Post Reply