The £165 pothole - driver's battle for compensation (From Evesham Journal)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting EJ NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
The £165 pothole - Norton driver's battle for compensation
7:30am Wednesday 6th March 2013 in News By Tom Edwards
FURIOUS: Derek Jones from Littleworth, with the pothole in Church Lane that caused £165 damage to his car. 0913258902
A FURIOUS builder is threatening to take Worcestershire County Council to court after damaging his car while driving over a “shocking” pothole.
Derek Jones had to fork out £165 to repair his car after hitting a three-inch deep pothole close to his home in Norton, near Worcester.
Worcestershire County Council has revealed it is repairing an average of 200 potholes a day at the moment and is appealing for more people to report them.
But the council has refused to cover the cost of Mr Jones’s repairs, despite having been told of the offending pothole the day before his car hit it.
Mr Jones was driving along Church Lane when his black Kia Cee'd hit the hole, causing a burst front tyre on the passenger’s side, and dislodging internal parts of the vehicle, meaning it had to be re-aligned at a garage.
Since having his request for compensation refused, he is considering taking the authority to a small claims court in a bid to get some money back.
“I was driving up Church Lane and it was dark and slightly wet at the time, but I was doing a normal speed,” said Mr Jones, aged 54, of Norton, near Worcester.
“I suddenly went over this pothole and it was a great big thing, around three inches deep – the whole car shook.
“The passenger’s front tyre blew and I knew it was bad. I reported it to the council and they filled it in within days so they realised it too.”
He sent a photocopy of the receipt along with a letter to County Hall, but got a response last week saying he would not get any compensation.
“It basically said ‘sorry, but there’s nothing we can do’,” he said. “All I want is compensation for what I think I’m entitled to.
“That road is so busy, I reckon other people are out of pocket too. I’m thinking of taking them to court.”
The council has admitted the pothole was first reported to the authority by another driver 24 hours before Mr Jones hit it on Saturday, December 29.
The hole was repaired the next day – Sunday, December 30, and Mr Jones says he got his letter last Wednesday confirming that he would not get compensation.
A council spokesman said he was unable to comment on “specific cases” and refused to say why his request was rejected.
Highways manager Jon Fraser said: “In order for a claimant to be successful the county council must be proven to be in breach of its statutory duty.
“A defence to such claims is available to the council under Section 58 of the Highways Act, and if it can show that a defence exists the claimant will not be offered compensation.
“Therefore each instance is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.”
Related story:
200 potholes filled in daily across Worcestershire
Comments(69)
DEMRICS
says...
8:04am Wed 6 Mar 13
Letterman wrote:I do not disagree with your comments Letterman. The highways department failed to repair a dangerous pothole that was reported to them.
"Highways manager Jon Fraser said: “In order for a claimant to be successful the county council must be proven to be in breach of its statutory duty." Hold on, if the council were told of this dangerous 3" deep pothole, which they clearly failed to repair as an emergency, them as far as I am concerned the council has breached it's statutory duty because highway law says that highway authorities have a duty of care to make roads safe. Because of this clear example of negligence, Mr Jones has every right to take the council, or the specific member of staff in charge, to court. Another example of incompetence and failings by the highways department.
Letterman
says...
8:14am Wed 6 Mar 13
Letterman wrote:I was meant to say "if the council were told of this dangerous 3" deep pothole the day before the incident"
"Highways manager Jon Fraser said: “In order for a claimant to be successful the county council must be proven to be in breach of its statutory duty." Hold on, if the council were told of this dangerous 3" deep pothole, which they clearly failed to repair as an emergency, them as far as I am concerned the council has breached it's statutory duty because highway law says that highway authorities have a duty of care to make roads safe. Because of this clear example of negligence, Mr Jones has every right to take the council, or the specific member of staff in charge, to court. Another example of incompetence and failings by the highways department.
They only repaired it after Mr Jones hit it.
StretchMark
says...
8:22am Wed 6 Mar 13
I am determined to get the money back. Small claims Court it is - if necessary. I live in Littleworth too.
Mark
green49
says...
8:34am Wed 6 Mar 13
Mr Fraser is in a position of responsibilty and gets well paid for it so he should do the job or resign.
StretchMark
says...
8:46am Wed 6 Mar 13
This particular road is in an awful state. I imagine roads in some of the 3rd world countries are in better condition. And if it's not the council then whose fault is it?
StretchMark
says...
11:29am Wed 6 Mar 13
Whatwudfarmeralansay
says...
2:47pm Wed 6 Mar 13
iizmrs
says...
3:20pm Wed 6 Mar 13
StretchMark
says...
3:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13
The speed limit is 30mph on that road which is already quite slow. I am constantly having to weave around the holes and dips in the road to try and protect my car.
Obviously if I had seen the pot hole I would have driven round it but on this occasion the pothole was filled with water on a rainy night and looked just like a puddle. The next day I photographed it to help the council realise just how bad it was and so they could get it filled quickly and prevent more damage being done. While I was taking the pictures cars were swerving around it and nearly hitting either the parked cars nearby - or cars coming the other way so I'm glad I reported it - to help other road users and maybe save someone from having a serious accident.
I'm sure you drive very carefully and never ever have an accident or bump over a pot hole but while pot holes exist they remain a danger to all road users. In my view it is negligence by the council . It wasn't just bad luck or poor driving. It was quite simply due to inadequate inspection and maintenance by the council.
After all, if it's not the council's job to maintain the roads whose job is it?
More Tea Vicar
says...
3:29pm Wed 6 Mar 13
We haven't had a particularly hard winter. The Council is just failing to do its job.
I suspect the low quality of repairs is contributing to the problem. They keep boasting of the high number of repairs they're doing.
Even if true - and I don't take council figures as true, necessarily - I wonder how long they spend on each job? How many people have they got?
It strikes me they're just turning up, doing a very rapid band-aid job, and moving on. Never doing the job properly. That's actually making more work, but never actually doing the job.
I think they used to do it better than this, even in pre-Labour bigspending days. Surely it's more cost-effective to get people on to a road and re-do whole stretches, than doing the current approach. I'd suggest this is more about competence than resources.
MrThirsty247
says...
3:31pm Wed 6 Mar 13
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
4:48pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Pot hole dodger
says...
4:58pm Wed 6 Mar 13
zx12r
says...
5:01pm Wed 6 Mar 13
StretchMark
says...
5:07pm Wed 6 Mar 13
In that case it would have been cheaper for them to have settled instead of putting that person through the court case just so they could win. We paid for all that. It's inefficient and just compounds the negligence.
Sir Smeg
says...
5:23pm Wed 6 Mar 13
I suppose posting comments vents a bit of anger, but don't suppose for a second that anything will get done just because of a few complaints. The bosses will still get their fat wage packets for sitting on their shiny corporate arses doing nothing!
Pot hole dodger
says...
5:27pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Hillbilly1
says...
6:46pm Wed 6 Mar 13
DarrenM
says...
8:03pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Did it leap out at him?
Pot hole dodger
says...
9:37pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Hillbilly1
says...
9:48pm Wed 6 Mar 13
StretchMark
says...
10:09pm Wed 6 Mar 13
This is where the council are failing and we are paying the price. If we then claim against the council for not doing their job properly and maintaining the road so it is safe to drive on they should pay for the damage to be repaired. And they should not force us to take them to court which just costs us, them and the ratepayer more money than if they just paid for the damage in the first place. It's quite simple really. This stupid game they play is just causing distress and extra expense. Hiding behind an inspection regime that is inadequate is totally unacceptable.
I say again. if the council; aren't responsible for maintaining the roads, who is?
green49
says...
7:27am Thu 7 Mar 13
Guy66
says...
8:05am Thu 7 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:That right Mark Worcester council should just pay and pay and pay and pay to all the worms who would them come out to flease the tax payer. Unfortunately due to the compensation culture and the iffy nature of some individuals the council will have to allow this to go to court. It is the only way to sort the genuine claims from the chav ones!
Whether you avoid them or not, they shouldn't be there. And if they do appear occasionally due to bad weather they need to be spotted quickly and dealt with PROPERLY.
This is where the council are failing and we are paying the price. If we then claim against the council for not doing their job properly and maintaining the road so it is safe to drive on they should pay for the damage to be repaired. And they should not force us to take them to court which just costs us, them and the ratepayer more money than if they just paid for the damage in the first place. It's quite simple really. This stupid game they play is just causing distress and extra expense. Hiding behind an inspection regime that is inadequate is totally unacceptable.
I say again. if the council; aren't responsible for maintaining the roads, who is?
StretchMark
says...
8:21am Thu 7 Mar 13
Obviously I don't agree with people claiming falsely, but if the council insurance dept can't tell a genuine claim from a false one without going to court what is the point of their role (there's some more money the council is wasting then?)
Taking people to court to decide if it is genuine or false is completely wasteful. (More money being wasted)
For genuine claims (decided by the insurance dept) the council should just pay up. It is cheaper to do that than go to court. I don't think the council are disputing the genuineness of our claims. They are trying to deny responsibility by saying that the road is regularly inspected. If it is inspected the person doing it must be doing it with their eyes shut. So if they aren't doing the job properly either there's more money we could save.
Looks like I should get a job on the council and start saving us rate payers some money!
StretchMark
says...
11:13am Thu 7 Mar 13
Council - Accept that you have a problem. Accept that you have failed to maintain the roads properly. Pay for the damage you did to our cars. Then get the roads fixed. On the radio Jon Fraser just told us about millions of pounds of extra extra money they are getting from the taxpayer. I suggest they review their procedures, do PROPER inspections & repairs and use the money wisely.
I look forward to the next written reply I receive from the council insurance dept.
Pot hole dodger
says...
1:13pm Thu 7 Mar 13
saucerer
says...
1:30pm Thu 7 Mar 13
As for potholes, it is so clear to everyone that the council are not doing their job properly. They don't inspect roads enough times, they carry out repairs which are of a poor quality which means they have to come back repair the same pothole time after time, they don't repair potholes which are only a few yards away from one that is being 'repaired' and they don't resurface roads properly, instead wasting thousands on tar and chippings which makes matters worse.
It may come as a shock to the highways department, but the public do not what they are talking about and have some intelligence. In fact, we could to a better job that all these bunch of overpaid and under-worked highway idiots.
This whole approach to repairs, and management of roads generally, is tantamount to negligence. The whole department should be held to account with staff named and shamed, or even sacked, while we should all start a concerted campaign against the constant ineptitude emanating from County Hall. And anyone who injures themselves or has their vehicles damaged by their negligence should claim against, or even sue, the council or council individuals.
saucerer
says...
1:33pm Thu 7 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:StretchMark, don't let this lie. The highways department needs to be held to account and named and shamed, otherwise their lack of competence and concerns will continue, and one day some innocent member of the public will suffer, or worse.
Now the problem is being discussed on the BBC radio and in the newspapers too ... maybe the council will realise that there IS a problem and trying to blame the drivers for the council's own failings is not on.
Council - Accept that you have a problem. Accept that you have failed to maintain the roads properly. Pay for the damage you did to our cars. Then get the roads fixed. On the radio Jon Fraser just told us about millions of pounds of extra extra money they are getting from the taxpayer. I suggest they review their procedures, do PROPER inspections & repairs and use the money wisely.
I look forward to the next written reply I receive from the council insurance dept.
Try turning up to County Hall unannounced and demand to see a highways officer, or even the person in charge of the highways department. It's a public building, they can't tell you to go away. And bring the press along too.
MulsanneChap
says...
2:01pm Thu 7 Mar 13
We can then allow the department to be run by the general public who clearly have a superior knowledge of budget management, outside constraints (which includes weather, the public, politicians, parish councils), local government workings, politics, legislation & policies and civil engineering to ensure that the Council's 4,000km road network is defect free and immaculate. And all this can be achieved this by using a fraction of the budget currently used by wasteful highways staff, as well as employing a fraction of the staff because the public works more efficiently and harder.
If the public think the highways department is genuinely useless and they think they can do a better job, put your money where your mouth is and turn up at County Hall. Who's game?
i-cycle
says...
2:23pm Thu 7 Mar 13
No one likes potholes (and they are certainly more much more dangerous for road users such as cyclists and motorbikes), but I do question the longer term effectiveness and cost of just quickly filling holes only to find the problem quickly re-occurs.
What's needed is an improved planned maintenance programme which gets to the root of the problem and reduces the changes of the holes opening up again.
Without this the current quick fix policy will simply be a waste of tax payers money.
MrWXYZ
says...
2:32pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Even if cost were no object then imagine if all the roads with potholes on were closed and resurfaced as soon as it happened - there would be traffic chaos.... and people moaning about the highways dept.
Drivers need to accept some responsibility as well. I do have some sympathy if its dark and wet as you can't spot every hole, but you can't have people sueing the council for every little thing.
Another example of some performance related pay being suitable though to make sure the highways work is carried out efficiently, shame this is just an 'evil of the private sector' rather than used in the public sector as well
i-cycle
says...
2:49pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Look at the mess the bankers bonus culture has got us all in!
StretchMark
says...
3:00pm Thu 7 Mar 13
They could then decide for themselves if the 'inspections' have been adequate. They could also see whether the repairs that they have been doing are adequate. It's obvious that they aren't. But until they venture our from County Hall they can hide from the truth.
And the truth is that ratepayers are paying good money for poor service. And then paying again for repairs to their cars because of the poor service
And it looks as if some of us will be paying again to go to court to try and get the council to own up to their failings.
I don't want us to have to do the council's job for them. I just want them to do their job properly. (And own up if they get it wrong). It's quite
simple really ...
i-cycle
says...
3:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13
You also need to recognise that its actually not the County Council or its officers that fix the holes, but private sector contractor Ringway. They will have to re-tender for the work so should be keen to ensure they are doing a better job.
MrWXYZ
says...
3:54pm Thu 7 Mar 13
i-cycle wrote:People are moaning about highways agency not caring about the public. But if they got paid based on objectives that would meet want the public need then they might care. Measuring not only speed of fixing potholes, but cost/disruption/recu
Mr WXYZ. I'm not convinced that performance related pay is a good a 'private sector' solution as you make out. Look at the mess the bankers bonus culture has got us all in!
rring incidents.
Or measuring need for redesigning roundabouts after they have been changed, along with congestion reducion & number of accidents (over a period of time).
Guy66
says...
3:59pm Thu 7 Mar 13
ole.org.uk/
StretchMark
says...
4:04pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Surely instead of extra money for doing the job they are paid to do anyway, they should be penalised for faulty inspections and repairs ..
That would make a nice change from penalising the ratepayers.
I'm dealing with Mandie Owen in the Council Insurance dept and have written to her suggesting that she come and have a look at the road to see if she agrees that the inspections have been done adequately (or at all).
I'm waiting for her response.
Pot hole dodger
says...
4:25pm Thu 7 Mar 13
DEMRICS
says...
4:31pm Thu 7 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:I agree too, a good idea to get the highways officers to visit the road causing concern. Try and get those in charge to meet you on site. Mr John Hobbs is the Director of Environmental Services which the Highways Department (called Integrated Transport) falls under. Mr Peter Blake is the head of this department.
I've got a better idea. Instead of us going to County Hall we need the council to come out to this particular road and look for themselves to see what a dreadful state it is in.
They could then decide for themselves if the 'inspections' have been adequate. They could also see whether the repairs that they have been doing are adequate. It's obvious that they aren't. But until they venture our from County Hall they can hide from the truth.
And the truth is that ratepayers are paying good money for poor service. And then paying again for repairs to their cars because of the poor service
And it looks as if some of us will be paying again to go to court to try and get the council to own up to their failings.
I don't want us to have to do the council's job for them. I just want them to do their job properly. (And own up if they get it wrong). It's quite
simple really ...
If these officers cannot attend, request that one of the so called highways liaison engineers meet you on site at your convenience to explain themselves. There's one of these engineers for each district area and they are essentially area managers and therefore responsible for what goes on in their respective areas, including road repairs. If they don't resolve your problem or cannot provide you with a satisfactory answer for their failings, complain to the local government ombudsman as they will investigate whether these engineers have followed processes and acted accordingly in terms of delivering services.
DEMRICS
says...
4:35pm Thu 7 Mar 13
MulsanneChap wrote:Sir, I believe you will find that given the opportunity, the majority of the general public would be able to do a superior job. There is, regrettably, no mechanism in place to allow the general public to take charge or to eject the staff currently employed at the behest of the public.
Why don't we just have a mass protest on the steps of County Hall calling for all staff in the highways department to be sacked and for them to refund their overpaid salaries?
We can then allow the department to be run by the general public who clearly have a superior knowledge of budget management, outside constraints (which includes weather, the public, politicians, parish councils), local government workings, politics, legislation & policies and civil engineering to ensure that the Council's 4,000km road network is defect free and immaculate. And all this can be achieved this by using a fraction of the budget currently used by wasteful highways staff, as well as employing a fraction of the staff because the public works more efficiently and harder.
If the public think the highways department is genuinely useless and they think they can do a better job, put your money where your mouth is and turn up at County Hall. Who's game?
i-cycle
says...
4:42pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Isn't it the private contractor Ringway that's to blame. They are the ones who are responsible for maintenance of the highway.
Perhaps we'd be better demonstrating outside their Sixways depot to ask why they are doing such a poor job for the taxpayer?
DEMRICS
says...
4:55pm Thu 7 Mar 13
i-cycle wrote:But the contractor has been appointed by the council and it's the council who specify the method of repair work required, the contractor merely acts under instruction. And the council should be inspecting the repairs they've specified.
DEMRICS
Isn't it the private contractor Ringway that's to blame. They are the ones who are responsible for maintenance of the highway.
Perhaps we'd be better demonstrating outside their Sixways depot to ask why they are doing such a poor job for the taxpayer?
i-cycle
says...
5:11pm Thu 7 Mar 13
DEMRICS wrote:DEMRICS
i-cycle wrote:But the contractor has been appointed by the council and it's the council who specify the method of repair work required, the contractor merely acts under instruction. And the council should be inspecting the repairs they've specified.
DEMRICS
Isn't it the private contractor Ringway that's to blame. They are the ones who are responsible for maintenance of the highway.
Perhaps we'd be better demonstrating outside their Sixways depot to ask why they are doing such a poor job for the taxpayer?
You are correct. However...
From past experience its still the private contractor that's responsible for doing the work and all too often its really difficult for any Council to hold them to account if they are doing a bad job.
Its just the same when you have work done to your house. You try to be specific about what you want and hope to get a good company to do the work. If they don't do what you ask and/or the work is poor its really difficult to get them to admit liability and fix the problem.
Theoretically at least the County and Ringway are in a 'Partnering' arrangement so there should be joint accountability and responsibility.
My main point is that its Ringway and not the County Council staff that do the actual work. If that's shoddy its Ringway that's ultimately responsible as its only them that can rectify or improve.
Letterman
says...
6:10pm Thu 7 Mar 13
MrWXYZ
says...
9:42am Fri 8 Mar 13
The person who moaned about puddles - they make it easier to spot. Water tends to lie in the holes/dips, not on the level bits of road!
'I don't know about performance related pay .. why can't they just do the job properly that they've been paid to do?'
Erm because you are moaning they don't do it properly. So make them have to do the job properly to earn all their money.
Surely a situation where the highways agency has an incentive to do their job properly, and drivers are aware of risks at the time of year is the way forward. People here seem to want the highways agency to do a rubbish job so they can be moaned at and then just sue them for anything bad that happens to them........ thats not going to waste much money is it???
i-cycle
says...
9:55am Fri 8 Mar 13
You make a very good point. The more claims made, the less money there will be to fill the holes. It also ties up Council staff in extra hours of unproductive time which could be better used doing their day job.
Its semantics I know, but I think you mean the County Council rather than the Highways Agency. The latter is a national agency that only looks after Motorways and Trunk Roads.
StretchMark
says...
10:14am Fri 8 Mar 13
What is their day job? Presumably the Council Insurance person's job IS to deal with these claims. Refusing to pay them and then having to go to court is just wasting more money.
Again. It's quite simple.
1.) The Council are responsible for maintaining the roads. Yes or No?
2.) If they don't maintain them and they develop huge great holes in them and someone's car gets damaged is it the drivers fault or the Council's fault?
3.) If it is the Council's fault and the damage needs to be put right who should pay for the damage?
By refusing to pay for the damage the council is compounding their own negligence.
So initially they should pay to repair the damage. At the same time they need to return the road to an acceptable state.
If they aren't going to do this the proportion of our council tax that is paid to them to maintain the roads should be returned to us so we can pay for the damage ourselves. They can't have the money - and not take the responsibility.
If your car had been damaged I suspect you'd be a little more sympathetic to those of us that are now out of pocket because of this.
In fact, this cost us a lot more than the cost of a tyre as we were supposed to be at the airport very early the next morning and couldn't go because our car was out of action (the space saver tyre would not have got us to Stansted safely). So far I have not included all the extra costs incurred in my claim. But I will if we have to go to court.
See how the Council are wasting your money!
StretchMark
says...
10:29am Fri 8 Mar 13
Would you drive round every single puddle in case it was a pot hole? I don't think so.
The pot holes should not be there.
We should not have to drive around them.
This is Britain. We should have decent roads.
MrWXYZ
says...
12:30pm Fri 8 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:It was raining when i drove home yday. I avoided the random smaller puddles that weren't due to the lie of the road as they were most probably pot holes. The larger puddles that were due to the lie of the road I also tried to avoid where reasonable.
And puddles make potholes 'easier to spot' is a bizarre thing to say. Would you drive round every single puddle in case it was a pot hole? I don't think so. The pot holes should not be there. We should not have to drive around them. This is Britain. We should have decent roads.
Bizarre driver me.
This is Britain - it rains and freezes a lot in winter...... pot holes will happen.
Yes it would be nice if the money were available to properly tarmac all roads with a camber on to allow rain water to run off. It would also arguably be cheaper in the long run rather than constant maintenance and regular resurfacing with these chipping dumps - but thats not really the point i was making.
StretchMark
says...
1:09pm Fri 8 Mar 13
What I can't understand is why some contributors on here seem to have the idea that we should settle for the way things are.
We should pay our council tax every year (mine has just arrived. It's £1750) and then allow the roads to fall into disrepair.
Then we should allow the council to do a poor job of inspecting our roads, and that the repairers should do an inadequate job of repairing our roads
That if our cars are damaged by this we should just pay for the repairs ourselves and if we try and get our money back off the council they should refuse and then employ solicitors and as many other council staff that can be spared to come to court to defend their refusal to pay (even if that costs more than the cost of the claim).
That we should weave all over the road trying to avoid potholes and puddles (in case they are potholes).
That we should pay people on the council an extra bonus if they actually do their job correctly.
That all makes a lot of sense.
I don't agree with settling for second-best. I think we should aim for things to be right. If we all did that maybe a few more things would be right.
MrWXYZ
says...
2:04pm Fri 8 Mar 13
I never said extra bonus - i said part of their pay as a bonus, liken it to not getting all of your salary if you don't do job correctly if that is easier for you.
Why settle for 2nd best? Within reason fair enough I agree.
But is grumbling about things not being fixed within less than 1 working day and trying to sue everyone the best way to fix it? How about writing to your MP with concerns about the roads, and suggesting more upfront investment be made available to save longer term costs? Something along these lines anyway. Cash is hard up, but you never know with investing in infrastructure now to save costs in the long term.
The only people really accountable to us are the ones we vote for - MP & council. The best fix to me seems a better job done in the first place (more investment), then realistically monitoring how these are maintained
StretchMark
says...
4:33pm Fri 8 Mar 13
My point - consistently - is that the council are refusing to pay for the damage done to my car - and to other peoples cars.
If the roads were inspected properly, and maintained properly then we wouldn't have to content with potholes and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So, in my view, the problem does not lie with my MP or the Government. It lies fairly & squarely with the council who by refusing to pay for the damage are compounding what is in my view their negligence.
And I'm not trying to sue anybody. I have asked them to refund the money I have paid out. They have refused. So I have asked them again and if they still refuse then it will lead to legal action (and will cost you and me more money).
Pot hole dodger
says...
4:53pm Fri 8 Mar 13
MrWXYZ wrote:It's a shame you didn't drive down it.... you might have a different point of view...and I hope it's not me coming the other way when you are dodging the potholes it's people like you who causes accidents.....no body drives down a hole just to fork out money on your car.
Couple of points - the situation isn't that bad (apart from a couple of places where you need to slow right down) to 'weave around', and by stating 'where reasonable' I wouldnt be going onto the other side of the road with cars coming.
I never said extra bonus - i said part of their pay as a bonus, liken it to not getting all of your salary if you don't do job correctly if that is easier for you.
Why settle for 2nd best? Within reason fair enough I agree.
But is grumbling about things not being fixed within less than 1 working day and trying to sue everyone the best way to fix it? How about writing to your MP with concerns about the roads, and suggesting more upfront investment be made available to save longer term costs? Something along these lines anyway. Cash is hard up, but you never know with investing in infrastructure now to save costs in the long term.
The only people really accountable to us are the ones we vote for - MP & council. The best fix to me seems a better job done in the first place (more investment), then realistically monitoring how these are maintained
StretchMark
says...
5:55pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Mark
Pot hole dodger
says...
9:38pm Fri 8 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:Yea ok...come up have a chat
Derek - You've done the best thing by getting the press involved. I don't know if there's much to be gained in terms of getting a result out of the claims by pooling our knowledge but if you want to chat I'm happy to meet up (I live just down the road from you)
Mark
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
8:48am Sat 9 Mar 13
http://www.confused.
com/car-insurance/gu
ides/what-to-do-if-y
our-car-suffers-dama
ge-from-a-pothole
So, by the looks of it the council gambit of quoting section 58 is their knee-jerk response!
As a cyclist I see all of these pot-holes at close quarters, which explains why I can be seen suddenly swerving about the road!!! So motorists please, please, please give cyclists plenty of room just in case!!!
Letterman
says...
9:43am Sat 9 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:StetchMark, as DEMRICS has mentioned previously, arrange a meeting on site with the highways people. Show them what has happened and demand explanations as to why they have failed to not only repair roads properly, but why they are also deliberately failing to provide a safe road which the Highways Act 1980 stipulates. As far as I can see, the highways staff have failed in their duties and they should be personally culpable.
Derek - You've done the best thing by getting the press involved. I don't know if there's much to be gained in terms of getting a result out of the claims by pooling our knowledge but if you want to chat I'm happy to meet up (I live just down the road from you)
Mark
StretchMark
says...
10:49am Sat 9 Mar 13
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:That's a great article. Thanks for sharing. I'd be interested to see exactly how the inspection is done. Having driven up the road again this morning, bouncing over the holes and dips in the road I really find it hard to believe that any inspections have actually been done recently. Unless they just inspect - but then make no recommendations about repairs!
Found this on "confused.com"
http://www.confused.
com/car-insurance/gu
ides/what-to-do-if-y
our-car-suffers-dama
ge-from-a-pothole
So, by the looks of it the council gambit of quoting section 58 is their knee-jerk response!
As a cyclist I see all of these pot-holes at close quarters, which explains why I can be seen suddenly swerving about the road!!! So motorists please, please, please give cyclists plenty of room just in case!!!
And I imagine that cycling along that road or any other that's full of potholes must be really tricky...
Letterman
says...
11:40am Sat 9 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:Under the Freedom of Information Act, ask the council how often roads are inspected, when the last time Church Lane was inspected routinely, whether any other potholes on Church Lane were reported to the council outside their inspection schedule, and if so did they act, and how man potholes they have repaired and the cost involved against the cost of resurfacing.
imustbeoldiwearacap wrote:That's a great article. Thanks for sharing. I'd be interested to see exactly how the inspection is done. Having driven up the road again this morning, bouncing over the holes and dips in the road I really find it hard to believe that any inspections have actually been done recently. Unless they just inspect - but then make no recommendations about repairs!
Found this on "confused.com"
http://www.confused.
com/car-insurance/gu
ides/what-to-do-if-y
our-car-suffers-dama
ge-from-a-pothole
So, by the looks of it the council gambit of quoting section 58 is their knee-jerk response!
As a cyclist I see all of these pot-holes at close quarters, which explains why I can be seen suddenly swerving about the road!!! So motorists please, please, please give cyclists plenty of room just in case!!!
And I imagine that cycling along that road or any other that's full of potholes must be really tricky...
DEMRICS
says...
10:14pm Sat 9 Mar 13
StretchMark
says...
8:58am Sun 10 Mar 13
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Ks6w8AwVw
DQ
saucerer
says...
12:21pm Sun 10 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:An excellent video StretchMark, lets hope it not only stirs the highways department in to action but it names and shames them too, especially as I consider Worcestershire's roads to be generally worse than so many other counties. They seem more hung up on delivering unnecessary and poorly thought out schemes than concentrating on repairing roads.
Have made a little video of the road ..
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Ks6w8AwVw
DQ
With regards to Church Lane, it is either a case that the road is not inspected frequently as the council claim (probably never), which explains all the potholes that have been there for months, or that the road is inspected but highways staff are just taking no notice. Even where some repairs have taken place, it is clear from the video that they are to a poor standard, but it seems the council do not care. They seem hell bent on just chucking tarmac in to a hole or use tar & chippings, rather than resurface a road properly with tarmac, which Church Lane is in clear need of. Even the pavements look in a very bad condition as do some of the kerbs.
It is clear this road is in an appalling and dangerous condition. We all pay council tax, but it seems that rather than some of it being spent on resurfacing roads to give a smooth and safe surface, it all goes towards their excessive salaries and perks.
The highways department has a statutory duty of care to inspect roads and repair then to make them safe and usable. The council's highways department are failing big time and they need to be held to account. Lets hope more people see this video, and from further afield too, just to see how useless Worcestershire county council's highways department is.
Letterman
says...
3:39pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Pot hole dodger
says...
5:46pm Sun 10 Mar 13
StretchMark wrote:Excellent job done with Video....gosh that road is bad...perhaps if u send it in to the inspector perhaps he can see the problems we have to cope with all these holes have been reported again to the council and still not repaired
Have made a little video of the road ..
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Ks6w8AwVw
DQ
MrWXYZ
says...
11:42am Mon 11 Mar 13
Pot hole dodger wrote:I presume you are accusing me of being an accident causer purely because my comments don't fit your agenda?
MrWXYZ wrote: Couple of points - the situation isn't that bad (apart from a couple of places where you need to slow right down) to 'weave around', and by stating 'where reasonable' I wouldnt be going onto the other side of the road with cars coming. I never said extra bonus - i said part of their pay as a bonus, liken it to not getting all of your salary if you don't do job correctly if that is easier for you. Why settle for 2nd best? Within reason fair enough I agree. But is grumbling about things not being fixed within less than 1 working day and trying to sue everyone the best way to fix it? How about writing to your MP with concerns about the roads, and suggesting more upfront investment be made available to save longer term costs? Something along these lines anyway. Cash is hard up, but you never know with investing in infrastructure now to save costs in the long term. The only people really accountable to us are the ones we vote for - MP & council. The best fix to me seems a better job done in the first place (more investment), then realistically monitoring how these are maintainedIt's a shame you didn't drive down it.... you might have a different point of view...and I hope it's not me coming the other way when you are dodging the potholes it's people like you who causes accidents.....no body drives down a hole just to fork out money on your car.
Or do you really think that someone adjusting their speed in light of hazards, and avoiding hazards in light of other road users is more likely to cause an accident than someone who drives at a minimum of the speed limit (which they believe slow) regardless of hazards?
I expect its the former as there have been some sensible comments since.
I do have sympathy if a road you have to regularly use is in this state despite potholes being reported using the method the council requested themselves this winter - and you have suffered cost resulting from this. But also trying to make the point that its winter and there are a lot of potholes, and drivers need to take some responsibility as well. People don't seem v good at seeing the other side of the argument on this site
StretchMark
says...
4:40pm Wed 13 Mar 13
Have had emails from our MP and from the Chairman of the Council.
Some repairs have been made today.
And looks like the council have
responded with their own video ..
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=9adUVUogc
8E
StretchMark
says...
1:58pm Fri 15 Mar 13
I maintain (and I think the video shows it) that the road has not been maintained properly. The inspections may have been done (the council are quite happy to give me dates when they were done) but they need to be done properly and ALL faults sorted out.
So - we'll give the council one more chance to do the right thing .. then it's the small claims court and we'll see what the judge makes of it all.
Letterman says...
7:40am Wed 6 Mar 13