Local authority lies about fixing pot-holes

[Arjimlad]

I reported some awful potholes using fillthathole and they were filled by South Glos Council within 3 days. It does seem a bit hit & miss though, as some others have been ignored.

 

[Edge705]

Really, why?

argh Gaz trying to catch me out you know fine well its section 58 apologies all section 58 of the road traffic act not 54 as I incorrectly stated can be used as a defence by local authories when defending liability claims relating to road defects. However they cant use this as a defence if the defect has been reported previously. Not all pot holes or defects are repaired even when you report them as the local authority may not deem them significant enough but if you mention section 58 they are more likely to do something about it than not.

 

[gaz]

argh Gaz trying to catch me out you know fine well its section 58 apologies all section 58 of the road traffic act not 54 as I incorrectly stated can be used as a defence by local authories when defending liability claims relating to road defects. However they cant use this as a defence if the defect has been reported previously. Not all pot holes or defects are repaired even when you report them as the local authority may not deem them significant enough but if you mention section 58 they are more likely to do something about it than not.

haha not trying to catch you out :P

Further more, I'm not sure how 58 applies. Can you be more specific about how 58 can be used by local authorities with regards to pot holes?

 

[Edge705]

haha not trying to catch you out :P

Further more, I'm not sure how 58 applies. Can you be more specific about how 58 can be used by local authorities with regards to pot holes?

Not so much the pot holes themselves but the consequence as a result of a pot hole for example a liabilty claim for significant damages E.g.: a pedestrian falls and breaks their leg a cyclist swerves to avoid and is hit by a car. However there is a degree of responsibilty on the road user in that they should approach road defects with care (assuming they see them in time) but as I point out pot holes become almost invisible in heavy rain and thats where they become a real danger. The problem with section 58 is that it can imdenify councils qagainst road defect liability claims as long as a maintenace record is in place. Their solicitors will always try that one first and this frightens ambulance chasing solicitors as its quite hard to fight the case where a councils section 58 is robust. However they cannot have any such claim for defence if that defect had been reported to them and they had not repaird the defect in resonable time. Case law suggest around 30 days.

 

[gaz]

Still don't see how section 58 of the Road Traffic Act is relevant to pot holes

 

[BluesDave]

In Putney they haven't repaired the potholes they've tarmaced them. So what you now have is a pothole with a thin layer of tarmac in the bottom of it. I have to say it is one of the more stupid things I've seen.

 

[gaz]

Its S58 Highways Act 1980

That is more like it!

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

Got the following reply from the Highway Authority:

The issues have been investigated as follows:

Hawthorn Rd - input to be re-assessed by an inspector reference no. SR1103742
Bridge St - on inspection was passed to be looked at for further resurfacing works
Manchester Rd x 2 - on inspection no defects were identified by the inspector, he noted that everything was within our tolerance levels
Bolton Rd - repaired

Regarding Manchester Rd x 2, it seems that their definition of "fixed" includes "we don't think it's bad enough to warrant fixing".
The two places concerned are:

There should be a category: "we've decided not to fix it".

 

[fossyant]

Got the following reply from the Highway Authority:

Regarding Manchester Rd x 2, it seems that their definition of "fixed" includes "we don't think it's bad enough to warrant fixing".
The two places concerned are:

There should be a category: "we've decided not to fix it".

They are Fine - you can't fall down them

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

[QUOTE 1694397, member: 45"]Ask them what their criteria are. Size and depth are specific, so if they're wrong you can call them on it.[/quote]
I think they are probably right in that respect. However, that simply means that they have a policy of not fixing the damage, not that the damage has been fixed as they originally stated on fill-that-hole. It is clear that the action they took to change the status of a load of reports was just a cynical ploy to improve their league table position. And, moreover, it has worked!

 

[BentMikey]

This is the beauty about fixthathole - you can document the local authority's failings, and other people can see it in the searchable database. If you only submit to the local authority database, then no-one can look at it.