Council's rejection

8th March 2010

Following damage to my vehicle caused by a pot hole in the road, I submitted a claim to the Council that has been rejected due to adequate inspections having taken place and therefore the Council denying negligence.

I have followed your Step by Step advice and checked the national code of practice where I think that the rural raod through the village where my incident took place is identified as a Link Road subject to inspections every 3 months. The Freedom of Information Act shows that inspections did take place every 3 months in the last year. But can I challenge the frequency of their inspections? I do not feel that inspections every 3 months is adequaqte as this road is often full of pot holes and due to it being a rural road through a village is more open to the elements. What is the next step?

Replies (1)

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 10/03/10 at 9:34 am

For the avoidance of any doubt, my understanding is that you agree that their inspections are in accordance with the national code and that their classification of the road is also OK? But ... you still feel that it should have been inspected more often?

If my understanding is right, you need to lay out why you think the frequency was inadequate; with all due respect, being open to the elements is not a valid reason as all roads are (unless they are within a tunnel of course).

Hence, you are probably left with trying to demonstrate that special local circumstances were in existence - have a look at Section 9.4 of the national code.