No, not made up.
First google result, seeing as you're too incompetent to manage it yourself-
http://www.hodgehalsall.co.uk/node/40
Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 places a duty on the local Highway Authority to maintain the highway in a condition that is safe for users. The "highway" for these purposes includes roads, cycle tracks, footpaths, public paths, bridleways and verges for which the highway authority is responsible. The duty to "maintain" includes repairs.
In order to succeed with a claim a person injured in a trip on the highway needs to show that the Highway Authority has not complied with its duty to maintain the highway in a safe condition. This has three elements :-
• the highway was in a dangerous condition to those using it;
• that the dangerous condition arose as a result of a failure by the Highway Authority to maintain the highway;
• if a failure to maintain the highway can be established then the Highway Authority are prima facie liable.
However, Section 58 of the Highways Act provides the Highway Authority with a defence against such a claim if it can show that it has taken all reasonable care to maintain the highway in a condition that is safe for users.
The Local Authority has a duty to maintain the roads, and this includes reasonable checks. To absolve themselves of any responsibility they have to prove that they have an appropriate maintenance plan, including checks, and that they did not know about the fault despite these acceptable checks being in place.
If you spent even the tiniest bit of time considering your view, then you'd see how ridiculous it is. You want to review your 'good authority'. You really are lazy.
Read my initial thread again, linfy. It's all correct.
Your link says nothing to dispute the legal position.
Some more which you could also have found-
http://injuryguide.co.uk/highways-act-1980.html