Hi,
Can anyone give any advice with regards to the letter attached?
Is this really it and I cant claim my money back? Seems dreadfully unfair and the pot hole is still there not filled. My accident happened on 14th Feb on the M25.

Any advice will be appreciated. 
TIA
 

4 minutes ago, Avvers said:

Hi,
Can anyone give any advice with regards to the letter attached?
Is this really it and I cant claim my money back? Seems dreadfully unfair and the pot hole is still there not filled. My accident happened on 14th Feb on the M25.

Any advice will be appreciated. 
TIA
 

Unlucky. It seems that unless you can physically get out on the motorway, measure the hole and then price that they didn’t remedy it within the timescale ( which you probably can’t) then you’ve lost out. 😥

@Avvers

Welcome to the forum.

?

Have you checked the Pothole website to see if others have had incidents / accidents at the same location and any reports?

http://potholes.co.uk

 

...The other side of the coin is, how can either you OR highways PROVE the damage was/was not caused by any given pot-hole, at any given time? 

 

If claiming compensation was simple and straight forward, they would be absolutely inundated with claims, ranging from slight wheel/tyre damage, to total write-offs being caused by a pot hole, within a certain distance of an incident. That is just people who THINK they are within their rights to claim. Then, there will be a multitude of trier-oner's who will chance their arm at getting a free fix to something they caused all by themselves. 

 

I damaged the underside of my sump once and needed a new sump pan, along with the necessary oil change, etc. This was due to raised iron works during a re-lay of a road surface. I most likely COULD have tried to claim for the cost of the repair, due to sing being a bit unclear but in reality, it was mostly down to the car I had at that time, being lowered and subsequently closer to the raised iron then it would normally have been. 

The average car would pass over with safety, if not being driven rashly. Nowadays, every other car on the road would have suffered the same damage is mine. 

At the end of the day, holes form, surfaces decay, roads need re-surfacing, etc. Unless there was a clear case of neglect, then you really don't have a claim!

 

Sorry, but I think you have to take this on the chin and foot the bill, unless your insurance covers the damage. If it does, then the insurer may well want to look into a claim but its doubtful. I think you tried so you are not a quitter but now its time to grin and bear it.

 

Try to look at the bigger picture... The ,ore claims the authorities pay out on, the less they have to actually fix things and so it will go on. I have actually heard that some authorities end up paying more on claims, then on repairs to roads and so more holes will be left and more claims will arise! This needs redressing somehow, sometime.

Maybe because you are on a hard shoulder, require recovery, and more than one or two vehicles are damaged in the same place in a few days or weeks, 

even if there is a pretence that there was not.

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/272686-motorway-blowout-2-tyre-wrecked-evergreen-fitted-oh-dear

Different as not a Motorway but a Dual Carriageway Aberdeen - Dundee /A90 and maintained by BEAR Scotland.

BEAR being a company paid from the public purse to inspect, maintain and car for the Trunk routes, not a charity, 

they will pay dividends to Share Holders and Investors and to, CEO, to Senior and Junior managers and the manual workers and others.

http://bearscot.com

 

 

Edited 19 June, 20205 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

I think as long as the road is inspected as required, and repairs are done in the relevant timescale (who decides that though?) then any claim is likely to be refused, then dry daylight claims are always rejected as you can see and avoid any pothole, nighttime wet claims are refused as a full puddle shows well and shows a hole exists, nighttime dry claims are most likely to be accepted as visual clues to problemis less. Potholes have killed bikers and cyclists yet still the roads are beyond carp.

I have claimed for pothole damage on a B road. I got the local councillor to help me and gave me the right things to say. Was a while ago so cannot remember.

 

got £100 for a new tyre which i was happy with.

I think I can give you some info given I work wth people who deal with these claims in Scotland.

 

You will only ever get compo in the following circumstances -

 

1 - The agency failed to check the road for defects to their required schedule. The pothole developed after their last check.

 - with a public authority you can request details of the schedule of checks, if these were carried out and what defects were identified.

 

2 - A pothole was reported/identified and the agency failed to check or repair this in line with their policy.

- again with a public authority you can request via FOI what defects have been reported and when (but not by whom)

 

You will not get compo

 

If they checked the road to schedule and did not identify the pothole

If the pothole is not a pothole because they changed the definition of a pothole. Irresepctive if you could lose a battleship in that hole or not.

If the hole was reported but you hit it before they fixed it (and within their fixing policy)

If they stuck a cone over the hole in instead of fixing it (rubbish I agree but it is a get out).

On 19/06/2020 at 19:33, NJRJ said:

I think as long as the road is inspected as required, and repairs are done in the relevant timescale (who decides that though?) then any claim is likely to be refused, then dry daylight claims are always rejected as you can see and avoid any pothole, nighttime wet claims are refused as a full puddle shows well and shows a hole exists, nighttime dry claims are most likely to be accepted as visual clues to problemis less. Potholes have killed bikers and cyclists yet still the roads are beyond carp.

Usual reason is most likely a section 38 rejection. i.e. road was inspected as per schedule and passed clear. I had one last year-fortunately only a repair bill of circa £200 . Your best friend might be Google streetmaps as the pothole might be visible with a date stamp. But then, depends on the road schedule. Google showed my pothole as existing in June, two months after an inspection, with my damage as in August. Personally next time, I'll try a no win no fee firm and see how I get on .

1 hour ago, VWD said:

Usual reason is most likely a section 38 rejection. i.e. road was inspected as per schedule and passed clear. I had one last year-fortunately only a repair bill of circa £200 . Your best friend might be Google streetmaps as the pothole might be visible with a date stamp. But then, depends on the road schedule. Google showed my pothole as existing in June, two months after an inspection, with my damage as in August. Personally next time, I'll try a no win no fee firm and see how I get on .

 

Since the council can set their own schedule it's nearly always no win as they can say that an annual inspection is enough, or within 6 months after a report - so if they have patching crews on a 6 monthly rota they'll never pay a dime out!

Try the moneysavingsexpert site for advice.

On 01/07/2020 at 15:38, NJRJ said:

 

Since the council can set their own schedule it's nearly always no win as they can say that an annual inspection is enough, or within 6 months after a report - so if they have patching crews on a 6 monthly rota they'll never pay a dime out!

 

What they can't do is change inspection schedule to avoid a payout.

 

There will also be guidance and rules around the inspection schedule for certain classes of road. Don't mistake 'guidance' in these cases for something which is optional. "Guidance" means it must be done and can only be changed with very strong reasons.

 

If an authority is only inspecting a road evrey six months when they should be doing it weekly I'm not sure how that will affect your payout but it might, and even if it doesn't I'm sue the local press will be interested.

The op was about the M25, but then @Avvers appears never to have come back to their thread.