Discussion
Are council taking the P#### with this reply ?
Under the terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the Council is required to have in place a reasonable
system for the inspection and repair of defects on roads and pavements within its boundaries. Failure by the
Council to take reasonable remedial action in respect of a known defect within a reasonable period of time
may result in the Council being held liable for loss, injury or damage sustained. There is not, however, a duty
of insurance nor is there a duty to maintain roads in a completely uniform condition. The existence of a
defect in the road, does not, in itself, establish negligence on the part of the Council.
We can advise that, in line with the above, the location of your accident is subject to inspection 12 times per
annum. In accordance with this inspection regime and prior to your accident, the locus was inspected on 17
December 2020 and any actionable defects noted during this inspection were scheduled for repair. It would
appear, however, that prior to these repairs being effected, your vehicle unfortunately struck the defect in
question.
In the circumstances, whilst we do not dispute that a defect may have been present on 23 January 2021, we
consider that the Council has fulfilled the obligations placed upon it in relation to the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984. We are therefore unable to attribute any fault or negligence to the City Council and must therefore
repudiate liability on its behalf.
Accordingly, whilst we sympathise with your position, we regret that we are unable to offer any compensation
in relation to this matter.
So in summary we know there was a pot hole we did not fix it for 5 weeks its not our fault you damaged 2 tyres?
Really!
Under the terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the Council is required to have in place a reasonable
system for the inspection and repair of defects on roads and pavements within its boundaries. Failure by the
Council to take reasonable remedial action in respect of a known defect within a reasonable period of time
may result in the Council being held liable for loss, injury or damage sustained. There is not, however, a duty
of insurance nor is there a duty to maintain roads in a completely uniform condition. The existence of a
defect in the road, does not, in itself, establish negligence on the part of the Council.
We can advise that, in line with the above, the location of your accident is subject to inspection 12 times per
annum. In accordance with this inspection regime and prior to your accident, the locus was inspected on 17
December 2020 and any actionable defects noted during this inspection were scheduled for repair. It would
appear, however, that prior to these repairs being effected, your vehicle unfortunately struck the defect in
question.
In the circumstances, whilst we do not dispute that a defect may have been present on 23 January 2021, we
consider that the Council has fulfilled the obligations placed upon it in relation to the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984. We are therefore unable to attribute any fault or negligence to the City Council and must therefore
repudiate liability on its behalf.
Accordingly, whilst we sympathise with your position, we regret that we are unable to offer any compensation
in relation to this matter.
So in summary we know there was a pot hole we did not fix it for 5 weeks its not our fault you damaged 2 tyres?
Really!
In think the holes have to be a certain size and depth before they will even consider them as dangerous and fix them.
The councils are getting away with a lot regarding potholes.
I would try claiming again as I believe they have 28 days to repair potholes .
Also e mail your local mp and the papers as well.
The councils are getting away with a lot regarding potholes.
I would try claiming again as I believe they have 28 days to repair potholes .
Also e mail your local mp and the papers as well.
Sounds about right.
I tried to claim for a wheel and tyre damaged by a collapsed drain/manhole cover on the Clydeside Expressway a couple of years ago, got the same standard reply that we check the roads to a specific schedule and if the damage to the road occurred after then, or wasn't quite so bad when we inspected (the impossible one to prove), then it's not their fault.
Also, why does it seem like ALL manhole covers/drains are partially collapsed or not level with the main road surface - do they just not know how to build them correctly in the first place?
I tried to claim for a wheel and tyre damaged by a collapsed drain/manhole cover on the Clydeside Expressway a couple of years ago, got the same standard reply that we check the roads to a specific schedule and if the damage to the road occurred after then, or wasn't quite so bad when we inspected (the impossible one to prove), then it's not their fault.
Also, why does it seem like ALL manhole covers/drains are partially collapsed or not level with the main road surface - do they just not know how to build them correctly in the first place?
Depends how much you want to esure they don't get away with it.
Reply stating that you dispute that they have "have in place a reasonable system for the inspection and repair of defects on roads and pavements within its boundaries".
Then ask under FIO for a copy of the inspection reports for the past 5 years, a note of the repairs carried out within the same timeframe (so that you can demonstrate that the historical time to repair from inspection is not reasonable).
Also ask for a FIO for a total number of claims made by motorist for repair under that stretch of road (if it's loads then the level of repair is not reasonable).
Good luck.
Reply stating that you dispute that they have "have in place a reasonable system for the inspection and repair of defects on roads and pavements within its boundaries".
Then ask under FIO for a copy of the inspection reports for the past 5 years, a note of the repairs carried out within the same timeframe (so that you can demonstrate that the historical time to repair from inspection is not reasonable).
Also ask for a FIO for a total number of claims made by motorist for repair under that stretch of road (if it's loads then the level of repair is not reasonable).
Good luck.
S2red said:
Are council taking the P#### with this reply ?
Under the terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the Council is required to have in place a reasonable
system for the inspection and repair of defects on roads and pavements within its boundaries. Failure by the
Council to take reasonable remedial action in respect of a known defect within a reasonable period of time
may result in the Council being held liable for loss, injury or damage sustained. There is not, however, a duty
of insurance nor is there a duty to maintain roads in a completely uniform condition. The existence of a
defect in the road, does not, in itself, establish negligence on the part of the Council.
We can advise that, in line with the above, the location of your accident is subject to inspection 12 times per
annum. In accordance with this inspection regime and prior to your accident, the locus was inspected on 17
December 2020 and any actionable defects noted during this inspection were scheduled for repair. It would
appear, however, that prior to these repairs being effected, your vehicle unfortunately struck the defect in
question.
In the circumstances, whilst we do not dispute that a defect may have been present on 23 January 2021, we
consider that the Council has fulfilled the obligations placed upon it in relation to the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984. We are therefore unable to attribute any fault or negligence to the City Council and must therefore
repudiate liability on its behalf.
Accordingly, whilst we sympathise with your position, we regret that we are unable to offer any compensation
in relation to this matter.
So in summary we know there was a pot hole we did not fix it for 5 weeks its not our fault you damaged 2 tyres?
Really!
Can I ask where the above came from? It's a mix of incorrect and correct information, "explained" badly. I'd be curious to know which LA (if it was one) sent that out.Under the terms of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, the Council is required to have in place a reasonable
system for the inspection and repair of defects on roads and pavements within its boundaries. Failure by the
Council to take reasonable remedial action in respect of a known defect within a reasonable period of time
may result in the Council being held liable for loss, injury or damage sustained. There is not, however, a duty
of insurance nor is there a duty to maintain roads in a completely uniform condition. The existence of a
defect in the road, does not, in itself, establish negligence on the part of the Council.
We can advise that, in line with the above, the location of your accident is subject to inspection 12 times per
annum. In accordance with this inspection regime and prior to your accident, the locus was inspected on 17
December 2020 and any actionable defects noted during this inspection were scheduled for repair. It would
appear, however, that prior to these repairs being effected, your vehicle unfortunately struck the defect in
question.
In the circumstances, whilst we do not dispute that a defect may have been present on 23 January 2021, we
consider that the Council has fulfilled the obligations placed upon it in relation to the Roads (Scotland) Act
1984. We are therefore unable to attribute any fault or negligence to the City Council and must therefore
repudiate liability on its behalf.
Accordingly, whilst we sympathise with your position, we regret that we are unable to offer any compensation
in relation to this matter.
So in summary we know there was a pot hole we did not fix it for 5 weeks its not our fault you damaged 2 tyres?
Really!
The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Section 1, states that “…a local roads authority shall manage and maintain all such roads in their area as are for the time being entered in a list (in this Act referred to as their “list of public roads”) prepared and kept by them under this section.” This is quite a vague statement, however there is a code of practice which provides more useful guidance - Well Managed Roads Infrastructure 2018. This superseded "Well Maintained Highways", the previous code of practice.
Without writing chapter and verse, the new code of practice states that authorities should use a risk based approach for prioritisation of repairs. In simple terms, when assessing a defect, the authority should consider the likelihood of it being encountered and the most likely (not worst) outcome of in being encountered. If the defect is considered to be an actionable safety defect, a repair time should be put to it. The courts accept that it is not reasonable to expect all defects to be repaired immediately and therefore allow time before attributing liability.
The criteria commonly used by the courts to determine if a defendant is liable are:
1. The harm which occurred must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct;
o Was the authority aware of the defect?
o Was the route inspected within assigned timescales?
o Experience of similar defects and the deterioration/degradation rates? Will the defect deterioration/degradation cause the likelihood and/or impact of the defect to increase before the next inspection?
o Have there been similar incidents on the authorities’ network or is the authority aware of similar incidents occurring?
2. It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability?
o Did the authority assess, prioritise and maintain the defect in accordance with their Maintenance Strategy/Manual or equivalent documents?
o What was the defect risk and priority?
o If necessary, what action(s) had been taken to repair the defect? What was the timescale for the repair(s)?
o Was the defect repaired within specified timescales?
The response you got is poor and doesn't answer some questions I'd have regarding when the defect you claimed against was identified as an actionable safety defect and what response was attributed to it.
Where my experience comes from, if someone insists they wish to claim, we would pass the claim to the insurers and they would determine if they felt it was LA liability. This would be based on their experience and how they think things would go were a claimant to take something to court were a claim refused.
Honestly, this whole topic is much more complicated than can be quickly explained. I think some LAs deal with claims pretty well and some are pretty dire. However, if you feel the LA was genuinely negligent - I know it's extremely annoying when you damage a car on a road and I've been there and bought the new tyre and alloy myself - and that it was unreasonable for them to have not repaired the defect in the time between them becoming aware of it and you hitting it, then I'd suggest asking them for an insurance claim form as you wish to claim off their insurance. See how you get on with that. Regardless of where liability should sit, the response you got was poor.
pistonheadforum said:
Then ask under FIO for a copy of the inspection reports for the past 5 years, a note of the repairs carried out within the same timeframe (so that you can demonstrate that the historical time to repair from inspection is not reasonable).
Also ask for a FIO for a total number of claims made by motorist for repair under that stretch of road (if it's loads then the level of repair is not reasonable)
May I ask what you think this will acheive? Forums love to encourage an FOI, but most of the time those encouraging them don't know why, other than they read it on a forum somewhere. Unless you're planning on going to court, an FOI will be, for the most part, a waste of everyones time and resources.Also ask for a FIO for a total number of claims made by motorist for repair under that stretch of road (if it's loads then the level of repair is not reasonable)
yellowbentines said:
Also, why does it seem like ALL manhole covers/drains are partially collapsed or not level with the main road surface - do they just not know how to build them correctly in the first place?
This is a big issue. The answer (not always, but very often) is that utility companies do these. It used to be that only the roads authority could do road works, but this was changed to allow private companies to be able to do works too. This was done to encourage private investment in utilities. Trouble is, when the law was changed to allow this, the guarantee period which utilities were made to warrant their work for was... 2 years. So, as you can imagine, when your water company, broadband company, gas company etc do works of any nature, as long as their reinstatement lasts 2 years, they don't give a s*** how well done it is. If LAs had the power to force utilities to carry out works properly, the roads would be in a far, far better state. You'd probably pay more for your gas and broadband though. It's extremely frustrating.If the pothole is what you would regard as dangerous report it to the police via e mail and they will get onto the la and push for repair.
I did this a few years ago on an overtaking area on Dumfries bypass .
I had complained numerous times about this bit and reply from Transerv was the road is usable but as long as within the speed limit it is ok to use but deemed uncomfortable to drive over .
I knew the local roads policing inspector which helped and within a few weeks it was sorted .
I did this a few years ago on an overtaking area on Dumfries bypass .
I had complained numerous times about this bit and reply from Transerv was the road is usable but as long as within the speed limit it is ok to use but deemed uncomfortable to drive over .
I knew the local roads policing inspector which helped and within a few weeks it was sorted .
PaulD86 said:
May I ask what you think this will acheive? Forums love to encourage an FOI, but most of the time those encouraging them don't know why, other than they read it on a forum somewhere. Unless you're planning on going to court, an FOI will be, for the most part, a waste of everyones time and resources.
Or not. On a seperate matter I paid East Dumbartonshire Council to uplift a cooker, fridge and washing machine. Pre Covid it was a 10 working day service. After a month I asked for an ETA. My email was not answered. The call cenre just said we don't give ETAsAnother month later I submitted an FOI asking for number of special uplifts carried out over the 2 previous months . By sheer coincidence my stuff was picked up 3 days later. My FOI showed around 6 uplifts per day so not overwhelmed.
My best guess is that the guys on the flatbed truck doing the uplifts were choosing which jobs to do each day and mine got ignored as I live furthest from the depot.
I would like to think that whoever got my FOI asked why I needed to submit it and got the job done.
irc said:
Or not. On a seperate matter I paid East Dumbartonshire Council to uplift a cooker, fridge and washing machine. Pre Covid it was a 10 working day service. After a month I asked for an ETA. My email was not answered. The call cenre just said we don't give ETAs
Another month later I submitted an FOI asking for number of special uplifts carried out over the 2 previous months . By sheer coincidence my stuff was picked up 3 days later. My FOI showed around 6 uplifts per day so not overwhelmed.
My best guess is that the guys on the flatbed truck doing the uplifts were choosing which jobs to do each day and mine got ignored as I live furthest from the depot.
I would like to think that whoever got my FOI asked why I needed to submit it and got the job done.
LAs have FOI teams. They will ask individual services for input when compiling responses, but I've yet to see something happen as a result of an FOI. More often than not it's coincidental. Another month later I submitted an FOI asking for number of special uplifts carried out over the 2 previous months . By sheer coincidence my stuff was picked up 3 days later. My FOI showed around 6 uplifts per day so not overwhelmed.
My best guess is that the guys on the flatbed truck doing the uplifts were choosing which jobs to do each day and mine got ignored as I live furthest from the depot.
I would like to think that whoever got my FOI asked why I needed to submit it and got the job done.
PaulD86 said:
May I ask what you think this will acheive? Forums love to encourage an FOI, but most of the time those encouraging them don't know why, other than they read it on a forum somewhere. Unless you're planning on going to court, an FOI will be, for the most part, a waste of everyones time and resources.
Perhaps not the correct approach but it seems the best way to get decent information regarding stats and being able to demonstrate consistent poor performance. There is a fair tendancy for nothing to happen in a LA until it forms part of a complaint and then miraculasly it's cleared up by somebody applying some appropriate sense.irc said:
Or not. On a seperate matter I paid East Dumbartonshire Council to uplift a cooker, fridge and washing machine. Pre Covid it was a 10 working day service. After a month I asked for an ETA. My email was not answered. The call cenre just said we don't give ETAs
Another month later I submitted an FOI asking for number of special uplifts carried out over the 2 previous months . By sheer coincidence my stuff was picked up 3 days later. My FOI showed around 6 uplifts per day so not overwhelmed.
My best guess is that the guys on the flatbed truck doing the uplifts were choosing which jobs to do each day and mine got ignored as I live furthest from the depot.
I would like to think that whoever got my FOI asked why I needed to submit it and got the job done.
The numbe of times this happens surely mean it makes a difference - somebody being forced to look at something rather than the usual fobbing off approach.Another month later I submitted an FOI asking for number of special uplifts carried out over the 2 previous months . By sheer coincidence my stuff was picked up 3 days later. My FOI showed around 6 uplifts per day so not overwhelmed.
My best guess is that the guys on the flatbed truck doing the uplifts were choosing which jobs to do each day and mine got ignored as I live furthest from the depot.
I would like to think that whoever got my FOI asked why I needed to submit it and got the job done.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff