Motorist vows to fight for pothole damage

Motorist vows to fight for pothole damage

Motorist vows to fight for pothole damage

First published in News

A MOTORIST says he will keep fighting for compensation after potholes caused £1,000 worth of damage to his BMW.

Tony Roberts, 49, from Shoebury, hit two potholes in Sutton Road, Southend, last April which damaged to his M-Sport BMW.

He has been pursuing Essex County Council for compensation for the past nine months, but it has now said the potholes are not dangerous and were deemed safe during an inspection a week before the BMW was damaged.

Mr Roberts said: “I had to get the car fixed because it wasn’t fit to drive. I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up. I thought the council would admit liability because it is responsible for the roads.

“I finally received a letter saying it had inspected the potholes and they weren’t at fault.

“If someone on a bike hit it, the wheel would’ve folded and they would’ve gone over the handlebars. There’s no way it can say it’s not dangerous. I’m going to carry on fighting. I’d like to know if anyone else has hit the same potholes.”

A spokeswoman from Essex County Council said: “All compensation claims received by Essex County Council are investigated fully and damages paid if the council is liable as the Highways Authority.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:35am Tue 7 Jan 14

abd123 says...

The Council saying no is not the end. He will have to prove his case in court. It is not simple and he will require legal assistance because of case law and evidence requirements. He will need to know the Council policy and understand it. It would be too risky a case for a lawyer to do on a no win no fee basis.
The Council saying no is not the end. He will have to prove his case in court. It is not simple and he will require legal assistance because of case law and evidence requirements. He will need to know the Council policy and understand it. It would be too risky a case for a lawyer to do on a no win no fee basis. abd123
  • Score: 1

10:18am Tue 7 Jan 14

leigh29m says...

Letting us know which road in Shoebury would be a good start...
Letting us know which road in Shoebury would be a good start... leigh29m
  • Score: -5

10:50am Tue 7 Jan 14

Kim Gandy says...

Good luck to him. They copped out of paying me for damage to my car. The excuse? I was the first person to inform them of the pothole...

Still trying to work that one out years later.....
Good luck to him. They copped out of paying me for damage to my car. The excuse? I was the first person to inform them of the pothole... Still trying to work that one out years later..... Kim Gandy
  • Score: 3

11:08am Tue 7 Jan 14

rayleigh123 says...

Dont muck about, they will try to bamboozal you with a lot of crap.

Straight down to Southend County Court - issue a writ via the small claims scheme.


.
.
Dont muck about, they will try to bamboozal you with a lot of crap. Straight down to Southend County Court - issue a writ via the small claims scheme. . . rayleigh123
  • Score: 8

2:45pm Tue 7 Jan 14

onorris24 says...

No wonder he's not getting anywhere..... Essex County Council don't look after Southend's roads as it is a unitary authority.... or am i mistaken..
No wonder he's not getting anywhere..... Essex County Council don't look after Southend's roads as it is a unitary authority.... or am i mistaken.. onorris24
  • Score: -1

3:05pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

He needs to grow up and act his age, 49 and driving a Beema of that colour, mind you his hair does match it...
He needs to grow up and act his age, 49 and driving a Beema of that colour, mind you his hair does match it... Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -6

3:34pm Tue 7 Jan 14

emcee says...

abd123 wrote:
The Council saying no is not the end. He will have to prove his case in court. It is not simple and he will require legal assistance because of case law and evidence requirements. He will need to know the Council policy and understand it. It would be too risky a case for a lawyer to do on a no win no fee basis.
This is a straight forward case of shirking liability. It would, indeed, even be heard in a small claims court and no lawer is needed (not on part of the car owner anyway). All the car owner needs to do is show damage was caused by a pothole. It is not for him or her to prove the council is liable, as the law already says that councils are liable for damage done by poor road conditions. It is, however, up to the council to satisfy the court with it's reasons as to why it will not honour it's liabilities.

Checking a road was satisfactory the week before does not necessarily mean they will be satisfactory a week later. The council will have to satisfy the court as to what basis it considers what is satisfactory and what is not satisfactory and the court will need to agree with this.
If there was already a pothole, albeit not severe in the eyes of the council, there would still be a situation where it could "potentially" become severe and/or unsafe and the court will need to be satisfied that council had good reason not to repair it. Saving money would not be satisfactory excuse.
[quote][p][bold]abd123[/bold] wrote: The Council saying no is not the end. He will have to prove his case in court. It is not simple and he will require legal assistance because of case law and evidence requirements. He will need to know the Council policy and understand it. It would be too risky a case for a lawyer to do on a no win no fee basis.[/p][/quote]This is a straight forward case of shirking liability. It would, indeed, even be heard in a small claims court and no lawer is needed (not on part of the car owner anyway). All the car owner needs to do is show damage was caused by a pothole. It is not for him or her to prove the council is liable, as the law already says that councils are liable for damage done by poor road conditions. It is, however, up to the council to satisfy the court with it's reasons as to why it will not honour it's liabilities. Checking a road was satisfactory the week before does not necessarily mean they will be satisfactory a week later. The council will have to satisfy the court as to what basis it considers what is satisfactory and what is not satisfactory and the court will need to agree with this. If there was already a pothole, albeit not severe in the eyes of the council, there would still be a situation where it could "potentially" become severe and/or unsafe and the court will need to be satisfied that council had good reason not to repair it. Saving money would not be satisfactory excuse. emcee
  • Score: 5

4:31pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Letmetryagain says...

I've had to fork out for two broken front springs in the last three years.
One caused by a pothole in Websters Way, Rayleigh.

The garage I go to has a big heap of broken springs they have had to replace.
One of the reasons being, Car components are designed on computers these days, by whizz kids good at engineering design.
Whereas in years gone by they were designed by people who understood cars.
I've had to fork out for two broken front springs in the last three years. One caused by a pothole in Websters Way, Rayleigh. The garage I go to has a big heap of broken springs they have had to replace. One of the reasons being, Car components are designed on computers these days, by whizz kids good at engineering design. Whereas in years gone by they were designed by people who understood cars. Letmetryagain
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Tue 7 Jan 14

tinyone says...

The worst road I have seen recently is Canewdon Road in Westcliff. It is an absolute joke, there is a specific one which has got to be very dangerous if people do not see it in time! At least 6 inches deep and at least 1.5ft long! Have to appreciate that all this recent wet weather will not help at all and probably making existing potholes worse, but the council need to get their fingers out their backsides ASAP to get them sorted. If I damage my car, especially as it is brand new, I will definitely seeking the costs from the council and will not take any excuses!
The worst road I have seen recently is Canewdon Road in Westcliff. It is an absolute joke, there is a specific one which has got to be very dangerous if people do not see it in time! At least 6 inches deep and at least 1.5ft long! Have to appreciate that all this recent wet weather will not help at all and probably making existing potholes worse, but the council need to get their fingers out their backsides ASAP to get them sorted. If I damage my car, especially as it is brand new, I will definitely seeking the costs from the council and will not take any excuses! tinyone
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

Probably speeding, has he points on his licence? probably
Probably speeding, has he points on his licence? probably Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -3

7:43pm Tue 7 Jan 14

baz freeman says...

I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.
I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz. baz freeman
  • Score: -1

7:45pm Tue 7 Jan 14

baz freeman says...

baz freeman wrote:
I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.
I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz
[quote][p][bold]baz freeman[/bold] wrote: I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz.[/p][/quote]I damaged my car two years ago through a pothole and i was only doing 30mph, so your saying people who have damaged their cars through poorly maintained roads must have been speeding or had points on their licence ? So all 'beemer' drivers also have to be under the age of 49 and childish ? NOW THAT IS WORTH KNOWING! Baz baz freeman
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Nebs says...

I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up.

You still need to notify your insurance company of the accident. Especially important now that you have gone public in the newspaper. When they ask if you have had any accidents in the last 5, or whatever, years, then if you answer no you will be telling them lies.
I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up. You still need to notify your insurance company of the accident. Especially important now that you have gone public in the newspaper. When they ask if you have had any accidents in the last 5, or whatever, years, then if you answer no you will be telling them lies. Nebs
  • Score: 0

7:38am Wed 8 Jan 14

LastLaugh2 says...

Nebs wrote:
I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up.

You still need to notify your insurance company of the accident. Especially important now that you have gone public in the newspaper. When they ask if you have had any accidents in the last 5, or whatever, years, then if you answer no you will be telling them lies.
So he didnt report it wonder what he hiding,
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up. You still need to notify your insurance company of the accident. Especially important now that you have gone public in the newspaper. When they ask if you have had any accidents in the last 5, or whatever, years, then if you answer no you will be telling them lies.[/p][/quote]So he didnt report it wonder what he hiding, LastLaugh2
  • Score: 1

8:08am Wed 8 Jan 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

LastLaugh2 wrote:
Nebs wrote:
I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up.

You still need to notify your insurance company of the accident. Especially important now that you have gone public in the newspaper. When they ask if you have had any accidents in the last 5, or whatever, years, then if you answer no you will be telling them lies.
So he didnt report it wonder what he hiding,
An awful lot, probably....
[quote][p][bold]LastLaugh2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: I didn’t go through insurance because I didn’t want it to go up. You still need to notify your insurance company of the accident. Especially important now that you have gone public in the newspaper. When they ask if you have had any accidents in the last 5, or whatever, years, then if you answer no you will be telling them lies.[/p][/quote]So he didnt report it wonder what he hiding,[/p][/quote]An awful lot, probably.... Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree