Pothole Claims

Thanks for the welcome guys.

I'm going to copy and paste the whole letter into this thread so people can freely use it!

Dear Stockport MBC Corporate & Support Services Insurance Department

Please find enclosed a copy of my claim form, and supporting evidence to back up my claim.

It is my understanding that any claim for damage with the proximate cause being the pothole is the liability of the highways authority, which in this case is Stockport MBC. I further understand that Stockport MBC would have a duty to maintain and repair roads and paths which count as “highways maintainable at the public expense” and that duty of maintenance and repair means that in such good repair as renders it reasonably passable for the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood without danger caused by its physical condition (Burnside v Emerson [1968])

Going by the above I maintain you have breached that duty by failing to attend to the pothole I have had my unfortunate incident with. I am aware that recent cases which have gone to court describe a danger caused by a pothole as a pothole that exceeds 30 cm width and a depth of 4 cm – this is confirmed in another case Wilkinson v City of York Council [2011] – which describes the danger as reasonably foreseeable that a cyclist, coming into contact with it, would lose control of his bicycle, fall off and be injured”. In this case the pothole is wider than the 30cm required and far exceeds the depth of 4 cm.

Now that we has established that the danger was there, I understand that your usual defence is if you can show that you “had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required” to make sure that “the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic”. (HA 1980 s.58(1)) However in this case and the lack of driver stopping to help me I have had to rely on speaking with the residents of the houses that the pothole is in front of. In speaking with the (enter your witness name and address here) she confirmed to me that over a period time before my accident (and after my accident) she had made the council aware of 2 potholes on the road on a number of separate occasions, and whilst they were filled in, the issue was compounded by the lack of maintenance to the blocked drains rendering the filling in with tarmac useless, as the water ingress had damaged the fill and was then ‘pulled out’ by passing traffic. I view this as you having not fully addressed the issue and take said care, this is my reason for holding you liable for the damage sustained to my bike.

(On a side note, I notice it has been filled again once since my accident and the fill has yet again come out. And whilst speaking with the (WITNESS AGAIN), I counted the sound of numerous vehicles hitting the pothole)

Please address these issues not only for me and other cyclists but for all road users, as I fear this will cause something much worse in the future.

As I put in my initial email to make you aware of the claim, I am a fair and reasonable person, and having worked in the insurance industry for 10 years I have developed a dislike for people looking to defraud companies, people etc so this is why I am approaching yourselves for settlement rather than using a solicitor or via my insurance company. As my claim is only for the value of my bike and a extra chiropractor session, I see this as extremely fair, so I am asking you to please not repudiate my claim and not force me use a solicitor to pursue you for these costs which will end up costing both of us more money.

Yours truly,




Nick Roper

mossychops wrote:

I hit a pothole last summer - where a cycle lane crosses a road/dropped kerb, there was a 4" hole - hit it hard enough to give me a concussed feeling and crease my rear rim. I took all the photos etc and sent the details to Solihull council who sent this to an insurance company who is paid to reject claims. They rejected it saying that the road had been inspected within 3 months. I asked for proof and they sent me a document that had a blokes name and said he had walked down this road within 3 months.

My argument now is that I am pretty sure that a hole that big cannot happen within 3 months over the summer period. Does anyone know where I can get an expert opinion as to whether or not this is possible and also is it worth sumbitting a small claims court case anyway?

Will post a pic in a minute.

Thanks

Go to the small claims office. Was it 4 inches in depth or width??? If you have the images after the accident, you could use the metadata stored on the photo's to prove date also.