Do I stand a chance?

29th September 2011

I've recently had a claim for compensation turned down by Kent Highways - no surprise there!

I feel very strongly, as does everyone, that the Angency hide behind 'reasonable' in a lot of their duty of care.

The basics of my claim are that I hit a pothole on 2 Feb 2011. The pothole was marked with spray paint and the council confirmed that the defect was noted by their inspection on 10 Jan 2011. The pothole was repaired on 18 Feb 2011.

When I hit the hole, it wrote off a wheel and tyre but the claim has been declined along the lines of the repair was done in a reasonable time - reasonable in whose opinion? The road was a 60mph road, unlit and there was no warning signs, cones or anything to raise awareness.

My two questions are:-

Is there any advice on the use of 'reasonable'? Is it reasonable for a pothole to be present for 46 days, marked with paint and big enough to cause significant damage, before being repaired?

Is an appeal along the lines of the duty of care under Health and Safety likely to succeed?

Would welcome any thoughts. I want to fight them but I do get the impression that it's likely to be futile.

Thanks

Replies (1)

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 30/09/11 at 12:49 pm

There's some advice on when pothole should be repaired in the National code of good practice. download is free and the link is in our step by step guide.

Duty of care will be flogging a dead horse - duty to maintain is what you need to allege - section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.