Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum
road.cc bike forum

Pothole Claims - British Cyling, no dice

by Morpheus_00
Fri, Apr 05, 2024 15:55
9

Hi all,

Had a nasty crash on my road bike nearly 2 years back. Hit a pothole in the rain and made a claim through my BC legal cover (Leigh Day). In short, they were incredibly slow and ended up doing nothing. Basically, as the council had an inspection report of the road I'd cycled on, they said they'd met their statuory duty to inspect the road and so weren't liable. Took them 18 months to conclude this. Anyway, I've had advice to use a different solicitor as a claim may still be possible on the grounds that the council hadn't taken due care with their inspection. Can anyone recommend a good claims company for this?

Thanks peeps 1

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

9 comments

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 7 months ago
0 likes

Did you check to see if a pothole had been reported at that location since the date of the inspection? They would still be liable if a pothole opened up subsequent to their scheduled visit but was brought to their attention via one of the reporting websites.

Avatar
Morpheus_00 replied to Dnnnnnn | 7 months ago
1 like

The pothole was massive and only a month or so after their supposed inspection. In good summer weather the pothole was definitely there at the time of inspection. They simply overlooked it.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn replied to Morpheus_00 | 7 months ago
0 likes

All the more reason to check the reporting sites?
If you're alleging negligence, you need evidence.

Avatar
wtjs | 8 months ago
3 likes

Near Garstang, at Winmarleigh, an 80-odd year old club cyclist was killed when his front wheel went down a deep narrow pothole. It was reported several times on here. The council had inspected the road after these potholes had been reported previously- clearly the reporter just went around for a drive in the country and no action was taken. He claimed in court that the pothole must have 'closed up' by the time he inspected it and later widened again, because it was deep before and after his inspection. You just have to lie confidently in court, and you can get away with anything where cyclist injuries and deaths are concerned!

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to wtjs | 7 months ago
1 like

wtjs wrote:

Near Garstang, at Winmarleigh, an 80-odd year old club cyclist was killed when his front wheel went down a deep narrow pothole. It was reported several times on here. The council had inspected the road after these potholes had been reported previously- 

Pothole narrow enough to be spanned by a car tyre, therefore not worthy of reapir, road is safe to use.

Avatar
wtjs replied to wycombewheeler | 7 months ago
2 likes

Pothole narrow enough to be spanned by a car tyre, therefore not worthy of repair, road is safe to use

Exactly right. But they didn't want to say that when someone had died, even though only a cyclist, so they made up the story about the road spontaneously closing up between the complaint and the death.

Avatar
Cycloid | 8 months ago
2 likes

I totally sympathise with your situation. I sustained a (relatively small) injury a couple of years ago and did not bother to claim when I read my local authority's rules. See Below,

They make up their own rules, then if you make a claim you have to prove in court that they were negligent. I would claim that their identification of dangerous potholes is car centric and a pothole that would not be a problem to a motor vehicle could be (and was) dangerous to a cyclist. Good Luck!

"To carry out our responsibilities under the Highways Act, we inspect roads and footpaths regularly following our Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections. We identity and record defects and repair any we identify as being dangerous. The Highways Act recognises though that it’s not possible to prevent all defects. This means that in law, the appearance of a defect doesn’t necessarily mean we have been negligent. We must use this law in our defence where appropriate. Any money we pay in compensation comes from public funds, and we have a duty to protect these funds."

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Cycloid | 7 months ago
2 likes

The rules on potholes and liability are ridiculous, is there any other area in law where negligence is permitted on the basis of "Oh yes we know about it and we are planning to fix it at some point in the future"? Years ago I was denied any compensation for a broken wrist when I was thrown off my motorcycle by a large pothole in Southwark because of that defence. I wrote back to the council asking if I would face no sanction if I knocked somebody down when riding with malfunctioning brakes provided I could prove that I knew they were malfunctioning and intended to get them fixed, for some reason they never replied.

Avatar
andystow replied to Rendel Harris | 7 months ago
0 likes

Rendel Harris wrote:

I wrote back to the council asking if I would face no sanction if I knocked somebody down when riding with malfunctioning brakes provided I could prove that I knew they were malfunctioning and intended to get them fixed, for some reason they never replied.

https://twitter.com/bigdavecyclist/status/1777663241998454787

Latest Comments