Letters: Cycling a bumpy road towards pothole justice
SIR – Whilst cycling along Cliff Road from Milford-on-Sea towards Barton last July, I encountered a pothole (well I thought it was a pothole) that caused a puncture, resulting in me coming off my bike, falling into the hedgerow, sustaining cuts.
On reporting it to the HCC helpdesk, they asked if I wanted to make a claim for the tyre; I agreed as the cost of a new reinforced racing tyre was £50.
The pothole was well-established, as it had grass growing out of it.
It has been confirmed to me that Highways do a monthly drive-by inspection of this road, with the last one being just two days before.
After six weeks, I had heard no more, so I contacted the helpdesk, who informed me that the job had been closed off, as Highways could not find the said pothole. The job was reopened with additional information.
In September, the pothole was highlighted for repair and a few days later fixed.
In November, I received a letter from the HCC legal department, stating that the information I supplied was insufficient to fulfil the claim.
This left me quite confused, as photographic evidence of the pothole and its location was supplied. After numerous emails to legal, the case was passed to someone else on appeal.
In mid-January of this year, I received another letter, once again stating that my claim did not meet criteria as laid down within Section 41 of the Highways Act, but this time they included an extract of the said clause.
The definition for a carriageway pothole is: “Vertical or steep faced pothole visually assessed as greater than 40 to 50mm in depth and greater than 300mm in any dimension.”
One thing I was never asked at the time of reporting the pothole was its actual dimensions, although this pothole did exceed both this criteria.
I enquired, why, if the pothole was not deemed as dangerous, did they still repair it? The answer was to stop further road damage. Highways visually inspected the hole, they never measured the size of the hole. How very convenient for claim purposes.
I have been in contact with the Citizens Advice Bureau, who said that it was not worth chasing. Small claims courts do not deal with anything under £250.
Whilst it would have at least been an acknowledgment to receive compensation for the tyre, this has now become a matter of principle.
The way this has been handled by HCC, involving two legal assistants, numerous emails over a period of six months, is not what I thought I was paying my council tax for.
So the next time you think you are definitely in the right, you may want to reconsider. The matter is still ongoing.
Steve Hull,
New Milton
