Potholes - How do we enforce repair under S41 Highways Act

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Our council was superb. Provided excellent services within budget, and had formed a strategic alliance with another such adjacent council in the next county. Even the council tax wasn't too bad.

All was good, everyone was happy. Proof if could be done if intelligence and prudence were in ample supply and petty political bickering kept at arms length from the actual business of service delivery.

Then they were forcibly merged with a failing council in our own county. The external strategic partner saw which way that would head and pulled out of the arrangement, and now our services are being dragged down and it seems possible that we'll be dragged into bankruptcy too.

So it can be done and done successfully, our original council was proof of that. They were managing very well within their budget. However, infecting successful councils with a cancer from a failing neighbour by forcibly merging them isn't the way to fix it.

Councils received a massive income hike in the 90s when rates gave way to council tax, with a brief stint of the PT in the middle. That increase has rarely been used wisely, and examples abound of financial and business ineptitude. That fact that there is a tranche of decent, well run councils providing effective services within budget shows that it can be done all over the UK, and that others fail to do so is down to three decades of mismanagement, not the income squeeze of recent years.

The failing councils almost universally have one thing in common. I won't use the P word, but it's their bickering, infighting, and insistence on ideology that brings them down.

Here's a question every elected councillor should ask themselves - "how does what I am about to do make a direct contribution to service delivery?" If the answer is not unabiguously positive then they should not do it. Read some council meeting minutes and you'll see why many are run so inefficiently, and it's little to do with the absolute budget itself.

Short of money? Then how can you afford fact finding trips to other councils or even abroad? How can you afford to pay contractors to manage service and take a 30% cut as profit? How can you vote a significant increase in councillors expense allowances? How can you waste 30 grand of a Christmas tree? How can you risk public money hjgh-risk investment funds that increasingly are failing to give the expected return?

Heres a good one. On my old beat, which was in the failed council area, they were ripping out old lamp posts and replacing them with new ones with a hinge that can be lowered to the ground, thus allowing serving and repair without the need for a ladder. I got chatting to a manager at one site and asked why they were doing it.

"Health and safety", was his reply.

"Oh, have you had folk falling off the ladders while changing the bulbs?"

"I've been with the department since 1959 and we don't have any records of a single injury received while up a ladder repairing a lighting column, but apprently its dangerous so we've been ordered to replace them all. "

Heaven save us from politicians.

I'm sure there are some well run councils but I guess my point is our interest payments are getting overwhelming and everything will be cut back pretty much. We will end up with a skeleton service for many things and I feel confident in saying pot holes will get much worse and there simply won't be the funds to repair them. I think just the government debt itself means about £4k from every home every year just to pay the interest and that has to be paid before you start thinking about services and its likely far worse than that now. What is going to happen with the huge pension shortfall? I can't see public servants deciding to sacrifice their huge pensions and provide important services to the community instead. It's pointless getting angry about but we are becoming a much, much poorer country and logically most services will be downgraded so we need to be realistic.
 

Bristolian

Well-Known Member
Location
Bristol, UK
We need to focus on increasing exports and limiting imports and not just giving away money which is utter madness.
Export what? We don't manufacture anything anymore. We live in a service economy ... a very bad service economy :sad:
 
OP
OP
F

Fastpedaller

Senior Member
Sorry, where was the victim ?

Your quote was:-
Also I find that badgering councils only ensures they cannot get work done as they have to answer the few people who use up a lot of resources.

My understanding is that you mean badgering the Council to get holes fixed takes up their valuable time. We (the general public) who fall down the holes are the victims. Bear in mind the Councils say "we welcome reports of potholes from the public"
Maybe if they did their jobs properly, we wouldn't need to 'badger' them?
 
Export what? We don't manufacture anything anymore. We live in a service economy ... a very bad service economy :sad:

We still are a major manufacturer nation unbelievably but its just the ridiculous imbalance with imports. However large scale industries like cars and motorbikes are tiny now and electronics far less significant. However the point is there are lots of countries that don't have huge industries but they balance their trade more evenly. Sterling is overvalued though so imports are cheap and exports are expensive. China does everything it can to make sure its currency is lower value to aid exports. There is nothing wrong with the British economy that cannot be put right.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Could it be that a case could be fought on the basis that more frequent checks are required on minor roads because they are used by vulnerable users who don't have car tyres with 90mm side walls?
Probably not. The time to have that fight is when the council updates its transport management plan, which sets out the check frequency and response times.

Or when the national guidance on such plans changes, which is more likely the problem, and one that won't be fixed before the next election
 

Emanresu

Senior Member
There is a penalty for those who fail to carry out statutory duty called MiPO. Carries a life sentence at the extreme end.

Definition according to the Law Commission is "The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification."

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office

Does it apply here?
 
OP
OP
F

Fastpedaller

Senior Member
There is a penalty for those who fail to carry out statutory duty called MiPO. Carries a life sentence at the extreme end.

Definition according to the Law Commission is "The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification."

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office

Does it apply here?

I suspect it would be difficult to prove a case generally for not keeping the road in good repair, however in the circumstances of Harry Colledge of Lancashire, IMHO a case should be made in the public interest, and the lying Highway Chief should spend some time in jail
 

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
There is a penalty for those who fail to carry out statutory duty called MiPO. Carries a life sentence at the extreme end.

Definition according to the Law Commission is "The offence requires that: a public officer acting as such; wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts him or herself; to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; without reasonable excuse or justification."

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office

Does it apply here?

Probably not

That offence is intended to cover things like corruption or much more serious failures to perform (likely to lead to death or serious harm) on an individual basis.

And also carries the caveat "without reasonable excuse or justification"

And is quite rarely used (85 prosecutions in 2018).
 
OP
OP
F

Fastpedaller

Senior Member
But what excuse or justification can there be for wilfully trying to ignore and deny the existence of the cracks in the road which caused death?
See Coroners words.
 

Alex321

Veteran
Location
South Wales
But what excuse or justification can there be for wilfully trying to ignore and deny the existence of the cracks in the road which caused death?
See Coroners words.

The excuse will probably be along the lines of funding only allows so many repairs to be done at any time, and this was on the list to be done.

But having said that, when it is a bad enough dereliction of duty to cause death or serious injury, that excuse is unlikely to lead to an acquittal.

There are law commission proposals to replace that (common law) offence with two new statutory offences
https://assets.publishing.service.g...c85dd91/Misconduct-in-public-office-WEB11.pdf

But those would make it even less likely for a case to succeed unless the result of the failure was death or serious injury.
 
OP
OP
F

Fastpedaller

Senior Member
The excuse will probably be along the lines of funding only allows so many repairs to be done at any time, and this was on the list to be done.

But having said that, when it is a bad enough dereliction of duty to cause death or serious injury, that excuse is unlikely to lead to an acquittal.

There are law commission proposals to replace that (common law) offence with two new statutory offences
https://assets.publishing.service.g...c85dd91/Misconduct-in-public-office-WEB11.pdf

But those would make it even less likely for a case to succeed unless the result of the failure was death or serious injury.

I've not read all of the preceding 122 pages, but this seems to apply:-
6.93 Another criminal standard that we have considered is “gross negligence”. This standard is most commonly associated with gross negligence manslaughter,119 which imposes criminal liability where it is reasonably foreseeable that the breach of the duty of care would give rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Deliberately stating the cracks had 'fixed themselves' but were present before and after his inspection shows he either fitted the above or was guilty of perjury?
 

Gillstay

Über Member
Your quote was:-
Also I find that badgering councils only ensures they cannot get work done as they have to answer the few people who use up a lot of resources.

My understanding is that you mean badgering the Council to get holes fixed takes up their valuable time. We (the general public) who fall down the holes are the victims. Bear in mind the Councils say "we welcome reports of potholes from the public"
Maybe if they did their jobs properly, we wouldn't need to 'badger' them?

Some council staff do there job and more, but get endlessly hassled by a few vocal individuals who take up a huge amount of time and take them away from their tasks. They know the rules and what the staff can and cannot do and exploit it to make their lives hard work if not miserable. It happens to social workers, tree officers, and many of the other roles. A bit understanding and tolerance would not be hard.
 
OP
OP
F

Fastpedaller

Senior Member
Some council staff do there job and more, but get endlessly hassled by a few vocal individuals who take up a huge amount of time and take them away from their tasks. They know the rules and what the staff can and cannot do and exploit it to make their lives hard work if not miserable. It happens to social workers, tree officers, and many of the other roles. A bit understanding and tolerance would not be hard.

Do you work for the Council?
 
Top Bottom