Hi
My claim for damage was refused three times...........I then went sh*t and sent a CEO escalation to P&K council's insurers which prompted an immediate response and subsequent payout
You need to do two things first:-
* Send a FOI request into your local council and ask for the following documents
Roads Inspection Manual
Reports on Inspections carried out between the dates of......on you specific piece of road
Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Zurich Insurance........(Perth and Kinross) which resulted in damages being paid out for two buckled wheels.
It is pretty lengthy .........and does provide some comedic value for bedtime readers
CLAIM REFERENCE xxxxxxxxxxx
Following on from my email dated 16/05/2016, I have received no update from yourself, or any evidence to support your stance that the council were not negligent.
(I have now copied in the UK CEO of Zurich to ensure that I am afforded the correct level of etiquette and a timely response to my correspondence)
I now have received the following documents after my FOI request to P&KC, and (again) respectfully asking you to reconsider your stance based on the following:-
P&KC Inspection Logs
P&KC Policy Document on Road Inspections
P&KC Inspection Logs
• My reported Incident of 28th (after which I received an Incident reference number) is not recorded on the inspection log.
• Two further reports citing potholes in the same location were closed off citing “ No Defect Found – No Further Action Taken”
o Instruction ref S1698828 reported on 02/02/16 states road is potholed in both directions of travel Greenloaning to Crieff
o Instruction ref S1698962 reported on 04/02/16 specifically cites the same pothole that I reported.
• P&KC Monthly Safety report on 09/02/16 incredulously states no defects recorded on A822 Greenloaning to Crieff.
o I would therefore ask you to explain why your client P&KC elected to close the A822 (with no defects recorded) ,for a period of two weeks ON 15/02/16 whilst they carried out extensive reactive repairs between Braco and Gleneagles junction?
In addition to the above?
I also note the following unusual statistics from the P&KC Inspection logs
• NO defects recorded on the A822 P&KC monthly safety inspections from March 2015 to February 2016
o Really! – Main trunk route south to A9 over the winter period has no visible defects
• There was a total of 39 reports of road defects by members of the public to P& KC contact centre
o Really! – A total of only 39 reports for the P&KC Jurisdiction for a period of 12 months
• Out of the alleged 39 reports – only one was deemed a defect.
o The remaining 38 were inspected and classed as “No Defect Found – No Further Action taken”
• Out of the alleged 39 reports – only 29 were completed within the stated completion date
P&KC Policy Document on Road Inspections
Para 1.3 states the following:-
Recording details of all inspections promptly, including ‘nil returns’, together with action taken, is essential as such information will be needed in the event of any legal action against the Council for alleged failure to maintain, and its completeness and accuracy will be crucial.
Para 3.1 states the following:-
Objectives of Safety Inspection
3.1 The objective of the safety inspection regime is to meet the legal obligations of the Council to assess the risk of injury or disruption to road users and the community and to seek to minimise these by:-
• Providing regular structured inspections of all parts of the network
• Delivering a consistent and reliable response to identified defects
• Maintaining accurate and comprehensive records of inspections and response
• Providing clear, accurate and comprehensive response to any claims from users or the community
• Monitoring performance in order to improve where necessary
Para 6 states the following:-
Safety Inspection Regime
6.1 Safety inspections are designed to identify all defects likely to create danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider community. Such defects should include those that will require urgent attention as well as those where the locations and sizes of defects and the consequent risks are such that longer periods of response would be acceptable. They are not however intended to identify defects with mainly ‘nuisance value’, where there is little risk of injury or serious inconvenience, for example in the case of stones placed on verges by residents to deter parking.
6.2 Inspectors should bear in mind the potential risks of defects to all road users, including cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people, on all parts of the network, whether or not it is specifically designated for their use.
6.3 Additional inspections may be necessary in response to user or community concern, as a result of incidents or extreme weather conditions, or in the light of other information suggesting that problems may be occurring.
6.4 The issues involved in safety inspection are as follows and are dealt with in detail in the following sections:-
• Network hierarchy and frequency of inspection
• Inspection procedure
• Safe working arrangements
• Items for inspection
• Degree of deficiency
• Categories and nature of response
• Recording and ordering works
• Works completion and confirmation
• Monitoring and review
Para 12.2.2. states the following:-
Defects presenting an urgent or imminent hazard or risk of rapid structural deterioration. Make safe or repair within 24 hrs. This will be interpreted as the end of the following working day for all notifications. Such defects will include:-
• Rapid deterioration in unstable wires, trees and structures
• Seriously damaged or defective traffic signals
• Missing, dirty or obscured Stop or Give Way signs
• Missing, dirty or obscured Stop and Give Way markings
• Missing, dirty obscured or ‘red light out’ traffic signals
• Missing or seriously defective ironwork
• Missing or seriously damaged safety or pedestrian fencing
• Pothole, trench or other abrupt carriageway level difference exceeding 40 mm in all road categories of a size and location likely to cause loss of control
• Ironwork – covers, gratings, frames and boxes located in cycle routes or footways more than 20mm lower than the surrounding surface.
• Edge deterioration with abrupt level difference at carriageway edge exceeding 100mm in all road categories of a size and location likely to cause loss of control
• Pothole, trench or other abrupt level difference exceeding 20 mm in cycle route categories A and B of a size and location likely to cause injury to users
• Trip or other abrupt level difference in footway or kerb exceeding 20 mm in all footway categories, of a size and location likely to cause injury to users, but excluding such level differences between adjoining kerbs.
• Gap wider and deeper than 15 mm in all footway categories of a size and location likely to cause injury to users
3 Defects presenting a moderate level of hazard or risk of structural deterioration. Repair within 7 days. Such defects will include:-
• Missing, dirty or obscured warning signs
• Isolated standing water
• Pothole, trench or other abrupt carriageway level difference exceeding 40 mm in all road categories in any location
• Ironwork – covers, gratings, frames and boxes more than 20mm lower than the surrounding carriageway.
• Edge deterioration with abrupt level difference at carriageway edge exceeding 100mm in all road categories in any location
• Pothole, trench or other abrupt level difference exceeding 20 mm in cycle route categories A and B in any location
• Trip or other abrupt level difference in footway or kerb exceeding 20 mm in all footway categories in any location, but excluding such level differences between adjoining kerbs.
• Gap wider and deeper than 15 mm in all footway categories in any location
In summary, after studying the inspection report, P&KC are in clear breach of their own policy document and not consistent with the guidance contained in “Well-maintained Highways the Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management 2005”, adopted by Perth and Kinross Council.
Yours
Good Luck
Other advice also available
