Pot hole tire damage claims question.

[Charlie Farley]

Hi Chaps,
Sadly my old bus has become another victim of pothole damage this week and I am looking for some guidance on the claims process as it seems to have changed since my last encounter with Surrey CC.
My front nearside wheel/tire took a hefty beating from a pothole or maybe crater would be a better description a few days ago, leaving the tire with a whopping big side wall bulge and steering shaking all over the place, my OZ rims look to be ok other than a large black rubber scuff on the rim lip by the tire bulge.
I went back the next day during daylight hours to take some pics etc and it had already been marked with orange paint, so surrey highways were aware of it but the fact it was only 36" long, 24" wide, and 5" deep did not warrant it being classed as urgent.
I had a chat with SCC on the subject and the person was very helpful to be honest as advised I needed to fill out a claim form from SCC and it needs to fulfill all the following prerequisites to even be looked at let alone be entertained as a valid claim.

You will need to provide us with:

• the exact location of incident with reference to an adjacent building or landmark;
• a full description of the defect with measurements;
• the time, date and weather conditions;
• direction of travel;
• attach photograph(s) of the alleged cause of damage;
• detail of damage plus two independent estimates for repair (unless repair was required immediately, eg. broken windscreen).;
• why you believe the highway authority is responsible for the accident.
• attach proof of vehicle ownership;
• attach a copy of current MOT and insurance certificate;
• provide details of last service;
• any other relevant factors.

I fully appreciate they wish to separate dodgy claims from valid ones so will want a degree of proof, but, this looks like it's designed to make it as difficult as possible to make a claim hoping drivers will not bother making a claim due to the amount of paperwork and proof required.

What about those owners such as myself that have older cars that do our own servicing and repairs, will our claims be void if the car doesn't have a garage service history up to date?
I made a visit to a couple of local tire centers for quotes, both were around the £260 mark for the one side, but none mentioned about fitting in pairs on Quattro's, and as 4 of my tires have worn at roughly the same rate after 3 years, fitting a single new tire with 100% tread and the rest on 30% it's not really ideal from my understanding and will create issues with the permanent Quattro setup.
From my understanding, both fronts should be replaced as a minimum, so any claim would have to cover the whole cost of a pair.
Does this sound correct ?
Surely if all my tires are worn to the same degree and above the minimum legal tread depth and not worn adversely across the tread then why should I be liable to pay for one when I wasn't responsible for the pothole damage to the other, after all its, not my fault that a pair should be fitted on my car so why should I be made to pay up £260 on top of the damaged tire.
I think it used to be called bettering years ago when an insurance company would not pay for more than a certain amount of repairs or something like that.

Any thoughts on how I stand on this situation?


cheers rob

 

[desertstorm]

I think you would be lucky to get any new tyres fitted that were not damaged. There really isn't an issue running a new tyre and 3 part worn tyres on a quattro car with Torsen diffs. They are certainly making it more difficult to claim trying to weed out the people just trying to make some money out of the experience.

 

[Charlie Farley]

Agreed , they are making it harder to claim which is understandable but how much evidence does one really have to provide that is relevant?
I can supply all they need except the servicing part as i do it myself, id hate to think i would be excluded just on that part.

 

[Audi Bairn]

I would think that, given all the back up info you do have, they may well try to wriggle out of it on the servicing technicality, but that wouldn’t stand up for me as a reasonable excuse for not settling.
Maybe submitting your claim under cover of a lawyers letter would add some weight to it?

 

[Charlie Farley]

Having spent most of the evening digging out all the info they need and filling out their claim form, all I can do now is wait and see what occurs.

 

[Frizzley]

I would think that, given all the back up info you do have, they may well try to wriggle out of it on the servicing technicality, but that wouldn’t stand up for me as a reasonable excuse for not settling.
Maybe submitting your claim under cover of a lawyers letter would add some weight to it?

i agree - can’t see any relationship between a car being serviced and the need to replace a damaged tyre caused by an unrepaired crater. I’d also argue that even though the council knew about it, its size represented a danger to road users and the council had not displayed any warning notices

 

[Charlie Farley]

What they don't mention on that prerequisite list until you start filling out the claim is that you need to also provide proof of purchase details for the tires if a claim is for tire damage and mileage covered since they were fitted.
Luckily I have that too but many owners may not which just makes the process even harder.

 

[Audi Bairn]

I’m no legal expert but I do deal with Construction Contracts through my work.
Also, in the past, have seen claims from members of the public relating to alleged damage to property, including cars, relating to construction operations such as new roads on developments.
Generally, it used to be that, if the local authority could prove that they’d regularly / reasonably maintained the road and that the pothole had only recently occurred they might have a case. If not, and it’d had been there for some time and they’d had other reports / claims then they’d have to pay up. I suspect like most of our crumbling country they’ll not have maintained it reasonably. Freedom of Information Act would be handy to you in this regard.
It sounds like you have a really good case.

 

[Charlie Farley]

It's only a small village I live in and the roads are narrow in many places, well much like most villages etc, they were only ever designed for lightweight traffic.
Now our village has become a very well used cut through route by larger housing developments in the outer area, our small roads just cannot take it and are suffering big time.
Once you would be lucky to see a small pothole every few years , now it's every week.
The highways dept just doesn't have the resources to deal with them all so until something changes with the way road maintenance is funded etc, and carried out
Councils will just have to just accept an ever-increasing level of damage claims.
The increased levels of housing developments don't help either as local councils always overlook( most of the time) the impact to the larger areas.

 

[Charlie Farley]

Looks like a glimmer, and I do mean a tiny glimmer of light on this, they have accepted the claim which is a start I suppose, i live in hope.

their reply.

Dear Sir/Madam, This is an email confirmation that your claim has been received by Surrey County Council's Insurance Services & Claims Hub. Claimant name: Incident date: 08 February 2023 Location: School Lane We acknowledge receipt of your online claim submission. The reference for your claim is INS 22PLXXXX, please use this on all future correspondence. Please be advised that claims of this nature can only be successful where negligence or breach of statutory duty can be established. If your claim relates to an incident on the highway and it can be shown that Surrey County Council, as Highway Authority undertake regular inspections of the Highway concerned and arrange for any defects found to be repaired, and that we had no prior knowledge of the defect that caused the damage then we have a defence under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980. We confirm that we are currently investigating this matter and aim to provide decisions in relation to damage claims within 90 days of the date of this email. If however we are in a position to return to you before the expiry of the 90 days, then we will of course do so. Information relating to your claim may be passed on to any relevant third parties (such as a contractor, or an insurer) solely for the purpose of processing. Kind regards, Surrey County Council Insurance Services & Claims Hub

Looks to be a very carefully worded reply, and looks like they can refuse claims on pretty-well all grounds.

I'll see what occurs.

 

[Audi Bairn]

I see they mention what I was saying about the regular maintenance.
If they use that as an “out” you might need to go down the freedom of information route, but hopefully not.

 

[Kevmoz]

I’ve got a similar claim on going with my CC and understand that they will pay a part payment depending on the wear of your tire, I:e 30% wear 30% towards the cost. I’ve not had the reply to my submission yet so can’t say what’s happening and even if they will consider my claim. Best of luck with it.

 

[Charlie Farley]

I see they mention what I was saying about the regular maintenance.
If they use that as an “out” you might need to go down the freedom of information route, but hopefully not.

From articles I have recently seen, SCC is very difficult to get a claim authorized even when they have no grounds to dispute it.

 

[Pinky1959]

I would send an e mail to your local Police Traffic department and complain about the crater, They should get onto the council to get it sorted.
I did this a few years ago on the A75 after I was told a rutted potholed area was safe to drive over but can be uncomfortable, I don't know if it was this or not but it was sorted within two weeks.
The more complaints the councils get imo the better as if they are like Dumfries and Galloway then they don't care about sorting holes properly.
One near me was sorted 3 weeks ago and now is as bad as ever and D&G say they will repair it but cannot give a timescale and it is a busy road.
Rant over sorry!!!!

 

[Charlie Farley]

Looks like even after supplying more than enough info to back up my claim for pothole damage it will just get filed in the rejected bin at SCC.
Having had conversations with numerous other parties it would seem SCC have only paid out on approx 1% of pothole claims and they were only due to special circumstances, which casts a massive question mark over my claim.
Oh well , looks like i'll be opening the wallet again for out of pocket expenses.

 

[Charlie Farley]

Another day and just when I had written this off I get a reply back from SCC , they have accepted liability for the pothole and the damage to my car , Which is great, but want to discuss the claim figure .
I expect they will now try to beat me down to a silly unacceptable amount.
Still it is progress in the right direction.

 

[Frizzley]

Another day and just when I had written this off I get a reply back from SCC , they have accepted liability for the pothole and the damage to my car , Which is great, but want to discuss the claim figure .
I expect they will now try to beat me down to a silly unacceptable amount.
Still it is progress in the right direction.

Promising

 

[Charlie Farley]

Indeedy

 

[Audi Bairn]

Fingers crossed for you buddy at least it’s a step in the right direction

 

[Charlie Farley]

Finally a conclusion and it's okay.
SCC has agreed to my claim in full, no reduction for wear and tear etc , and for a pair of tyres all fitted and 4 wheel alignment.
So it is worth making a claim just ensure you have everything inc the kitchen sink to back up your claim.

So a happy ending but ideally it should never have occurred but it's not an ideal world anymore.

 

[Audi Bairn]

Generally, it used to be that, if the local authority could prove that they’d regularly / reasonably maintained the road and that the pothole had only recently occurred they might have a case. If not, and it’d had been there for some time and they’d had other reports / claims then they’d have to pay up. I suspect like most of our crumbling country they’ll not have maintained it reasonably. Freedom of Information Act would be handy to you in this regard.

That’s my previous post copied and pasted…… suspicious

 

[Charlie Farley]

The way things are going around my area i will be putting another two claims in next week, every road is an assault course.