Ask advice - Council have followed procedure, their gamble hasn't paid off?
Bookmark and Share

Ask advice

Council have followed procedure, their gamble hasn't paid off?

10th March 2017

Had a buckled wheel//blown tyre after hitting a pothole.

"Fastclaim" rejected (of course).

They've told me to go through small claims.

Have done a Freedom of Information request and have maintenance records. The council have fully followed their own procedure, and what they are essentially saying is they have followed procedure and therefore they will not pick up the tab/accept liability.

In the records they acknowledge a pot hole and that "action is required". I believe their inspection record is noting that the impact is "extremely high/dangerous" but the probability is "low" (it's a small rural road).

According to their procedure this means the repair will be done within a non-specified timescale (!).

Now, I accept that they have followed their procedure. I also accept that the probability is low. But the fact is, that balance of probabilities has not paid off and I'm left picking up the tab at present.

They obviously do this to prioritise expenditure (which I'm also fine with), but my question is when the probability "fails" and an incident on an "extremely dangerous" fault actually does occur, would my claim be likely to succeed in small claims court.

Assuming I am reading the impact assessment correctly, I'm now as keen to get them to change their policy as I am for them to pay me - it seems a little silly to leave *any* "extremely dangerous" fault for any length of time in my book.

Opinions welcomed.

Thanks
Andy

Post a reply

To post a reply you need to be signed in. Please enter your email address and password below to sign in, or if you don't have a password click the link to register.

Not a member yet? Register now
Forgotten your password?
Please type a keyword
(min. 4 chars)