Inspector checked road....

7th June 2010

I hit a large pot hole back in February which burst one tyre & buckled the alloy. I went back next day to take pictures etc etc & it had been filled. I still called the council and followed procedures to claim. They have denied it with the usual & said that the road was inspected 3 DAYS before my incident and the highways inspector didn't report that there was any defects in that section of road. Now others have told me they new it had been there for months, with respect I understand that no one had bothered to report it. Since then I got a detailed weather report to show that it had snowed the night before they inspected it which may have hindered the view of the pot hole, they have again denied the claim becase the highways inspector reported it was just wet! What my arguement is, there is no way the hole I hit wasn't there 3 days before... anything else I can do????

Replies (7)

Emmie     posted : 07/07/10 at 12:35 pm

HI.. just to say thank you for advice getting 'WITNESS STATEMENTS' most definatley paid off, they have agreed to pay the claim!!! Whoo hoo, after 5 months of slogging it out, all I would say to everyone is just keep on & on.... it does pay to be persistent!!

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 11/06/10 at 12:10 pm

Oh! I see. Perils of forum sites- it's like playing chinese whispers.

Best of luck

Emmie     posted : 10/06/10 at 10:48 am

Not it was a pot hole... this was just the area they have tarmaced, I'm not saying the hole was that long... it was very rumbley around the pothole so this may have been why they covered such a large area, as this was on a corner too. However since your last reply I have had a number of people that are happy to write statements to prove that this was there even at Christmas time!

Emmie     posted : 10/06/10 at 10:41 am

Not it was a pot hole... this was just the area they have tarmaced, I'm not saying the hole was that long... it was very rumbley around the pothole so this may have been why they covered such a large area, as this was on a corner too. However since your last reply I have had a number of people that are happy to write statements to prove that this was there even at Christmas time!

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 10/06/10 at 10:29 am

20 feet long and 4 feet wide? Really?

In my humble opinion, that's more likely to be a loss of surface material than a pothole. Most modern surface materials are laid about 30-50 mm thick, so it is possible that the depth of the area was not sufficient to constitute an 'actionable defect'

Emmie     posted : 10/06/10 at 9:38 am

The inspector reported that there was no defects, so I assume by this that he didn't detect anything.. it WAS definatley there, my mum works, and passes the road everyday and also a few people who I work with have said they know exactly where I mean... but I guess in the daylight it doesn't seem such a problem & people dont report things as dont realise the consequence (I know I never have before). As they filled the whole the next day I never went to measure the size, however I went back this week just to see and although I am unable to measure the depth, the lenght was over 20ft long & 4ft wide (which they have tarmaced)... surely this size would not have detoriated in 3 days regardless of whether I get statements?? Thanks for your reply it was much appreciated!

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 10/06/10 at 9:08 am

Is there any chance that the pothole was there, but had not reached a level that was dangerous? For example, if the pothole was less than about 40-50 mm deep it is possible that the inspector would not have recorded it even though it was present.

If there are people who all say that the pothole was there for months and was there on the day of the inspection, then maybe you could ask them to provide you with signed statements saying as such.