another legal observation for debate

[flatlander]

Anyoneevr tried claiming for a pothole damage to a vehicle?

after they take your life history you wait three months you get ba refusal as the authority had operated with the terms of section 58 (?) etc ...

If you do don't get put off call and challenge it or write in and challenge it

my assumption/ question was if the inspection was a driven one ten surely to perform an adequate inspection as required by the act the drive cannot have been paying attention to the road... As an officer of the court are you not bound to report a criminal offence or should I do that and poin t the appropriate authorities in your direction for confirmation of the details... or you could reconsider your decision

[T.C.]

The most recent and publicised case was back in 2011 when a chap sued Coventry Council over this very thing http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heels.html

In most cases, the council will impose their statutory section 53 defence, but the courts are starting to see through this now and have intimated that many councils are using the statutory defence as their get out of jail free card rather than actually repairing the road.

If you see a significant pothole, I would be inclined to report it on the basis that once it is reported and they are aware of it, the defence becomes weaker in the event of a crash, and if it is not repaired within a reasonable period of time, then their liability could increase substantially, which in the case of a catastrophic or fatal crash could run into many millions.

I know that in some areas, their inspection records have been marked up as having carried out an inspection, but in reality it was simply a paper excersise and nobody went anywhere near the site.

The same rule applies in something like diesel spillage.

It is unreasonable for the local council to be aware of every spillage, so the first person who comes off on said spillage might have a claim against the MIB under the untraced scheme but is unlikely to be successful in a claim against the council. However, once it has been reported, then if the council fail to react promptly and in a reasonable time and/or without reasonable excuse, it becomes strict liability and they become liable for each and every crash that occurs subsequently.

[blinkey501]

You know I pay £500 ish a year in road tax

[fatboy]

The road outside my place of work is so bad, Highways have been compesating just with written statements and photographs

[Dalemac]

You know I pay £500 ish a year in road tax

I presume you mean vehicle tax, which goes into the general government pot, some of which is allocated for maintaining main roads and highways.

Then there is council tax, some of which is used for maintaining city and local roads.

Technically, there is no such thing as road tax. ;)

[flatlander]

I forgot to say I gave them 7 days to respond and they made an offer claiming they only have to pay liability for the damage caused by the pothole.
They stated that they were not paying as new for old because the car was a year 2000 model that they had deducted an amount of 50£

We ( the pregnant wife also known as the bumpess of bump 😜)
Are replying saying that we do not accept this.

We argue that the only comparable test would be of a similar ítem exposed to similar conditions, minus the pothole incident, was the other shock then it may be reasonable to suppose that the original would not have failed for the foreseeable future then there should be no deduction.

The original unbroken one is still unbroken nearly 9 months later. We are also adding that, whilst we have only submitted the cost claim for the repair however we are happy to include an out of pocket expenses claim and look at other areas of possible claim as they had accepted liability...

Or you can cough up the other 50£ and ill stop being a pedantic pain in the arse ;)

Edited to correct the Catalan spell checker corrections

[BikerGran]

?????????

[T.C.]

?????????

Glad its not just me thinking the same !