Rejected Clame

12th March 2010

I Recently had a pot hole clam turn’t down by the council insurance company, on the evidence the road had been inspected regularly.
After receiving a copy of the councils monthly inspection reports, that included the 6 months leading to my incident. I can only say I was surprised by the lack of information on how the inspection was made.
I have spoken to the insurance company about this, to which I got the reply of "It would have been done by a inspector who would have not been driving at the time, and at a speed of no more then 30mph."

My opinion is with out relevant information/ evidence of there method of inspection and speed it was conducted at how can they prove it was an adequate inspection of the road.


There opinion is that because of regular road inspections, of which the last inspection did report road defects and repairs before the time of my incident. They feel the council has obliged there legal requirements.

Is lack of information in there report enough to get some were in court?

Replies (1)

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 12/03/10 at 9:07 pm

Inspection records never contain details of exactly how an inspection was undertaken.

Keep in mind that they don't need to prove anything - the burden of proof is on you.

Their inspection methods will be outlined in their policy documents which will be produced to defend any legal action. The records will probably contain enough basic info to enable the local authority to establish who the inspector was and whether the inspection was walked or driven.