Inadequate hierarchy classification?

21st July 2010

Along with at least 4 others, I hit a pothole and damaged my tyre in December 2009. The pothole was swiftly repaired after being reported. I have followed the advice on your website carefully, applied for information under the FOI Act 2000 and submitted a claim for compensation to Hampshire County Council, which has been repeatedly turned down. Since the accident, the Council has re-classified the relevant section of the road to category 3, meaning it should have been subject to inspection every 6 months rather than annually. This is because of the intersection of a busy footpath with a crossing point (exactly at the point where the pothole was). Would I be able to argue that their failure to classify correctly under the national codes represented a breach of their duty of care?

Replies (3)

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 22/07/10 at 9:24 am

Nope.

Courts do not expect to see highway authorities getting it 100% right first time, but they do expect to see them monitoring and making improvements where they are justified. That seems to be the case here. What they have done will certainly get them some bonus points

Purpleflower     posted : 21/07/10 at 4:54 pm

Sorry not to be very clear - the road itself was inspected annually and continues to be so, being assessed as category 4. However, at the point where the pothole was, the footway is classified as category 3 (6 monthly inspections) and because there is a crossing serving the local shops and school at the same point, the roadway there has been reclassified also as category 3, in line with the national codes. My argument would be that it should have been classified as category 3 all along. This probably doesn't alter your argument much, does it?

Potholes.co.uk Expert     posted : 21/07/10 at 2:37 pm

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying;

• At the time of your incident the road was inspected annually?
• Since the incident, the road has been reclassified and is now inspected 6 monthly?
• You reckon that the road should have been inspected 6 monthly at the time of your incident?

That about right? If so, all I see is a highway authority who reclassified a road because local needs dictated as such, and in my humble opinion you will be hard pushed to suggests that as a failure.

Without the "intersection" you refer to, ask yourself if the original classification was about right? Then ask yourself what impact this intersection has realistically to the road surface? If the answers are "yes" and "not a lot" then their actions are probably OK.

If I've got the wrong end of the stick, by all means tell me so and bring me up to speed.