The trick is to find out what phrases trigger which of their responses. I understand that if a pothole is a certain depth then they have to look at it more quickly.
Seeing as the best way of winning a claim against a local authority is if you can show that they had knowledge of the fault and its risk, and adequate time to fix it but didn't, it's worth pointing out the risks. Being honest of course.
Don't forget to register the pothole at
fillthathole and make a point of mentioning that fact to the council, emphasing their legal responsibility to fill the hole now that they are aware of it.
I did that for a really dangerous pothole near here. It was on a very fast downhill, on the
racing line and the slope of the road was such that you couldn't see it until you were right upon it. I reported it after my mate hit it on his MTB. Its big knobbly tyres made the bike tough enough to survive the impact but it would have destroyed a roadbike wheel with catastrophic consequences for the rider...
I soon got a reply email from the council. Tellingly - they had forgotten to delete the messages from within the various council departments so I could see exactly what the reactions were as my message was forwarded from one person to another up the food chain! It went something like this: "Fred - here's another bloody pothole complaint" to "John - get someone to have a look at this when you can" to "Pete - this pothole sounds like a bad one and the guy has sent a copy to a third party so we will be up s**t creek if someone gets hurt now" to "Mick - go and fix this pothole - NOW!!!"
Within 24 hours I had an email from 'Mick'. He gave me an OS grid reference for the pothole and forwarded a photograph of his repair. He asked me to confirm that this was the one that I'd reported. Result! The repair job was done properly. I've checked it a couple of times, and it is still sound, unlike a lot of botched repairs that fail again once a few HGVs have driven over them.