I am bloody seething over this very issue.
I came off on gravel, the council admitted they put it there and there were no signs to warn road users. The council have said that it was not part of the road and they are not liable!!!! OMG!!
So I can dump gravel on a road can I?
I went to two solicitors, one was SMIDSY the biker ones, and they both said it was not worth persuing
What I wrote back to the councl solicitor;
Subject: RE:Accident on Grindle road, Grindle
Dear Hanis,
Ref: 003721/002220/GB/01/HR
Entirely without prejudice please allow me to reply to your letter dated 20th October. (Hanis Rehman refusal to pay attached).
Para 1. You state enquiries into this matter are now complete. I can assure you this matter is definitely not complete.
Para 2. You state that a reasonable system of street inspection was adhered to and that your client had not been in breach of their duty to maintain the highway pursuant to section 58 of the “Highways Act”.
Highways act 58:
58 a.” the character of the highway, and the traffic which was reasonably to be expected to use it” The particular road is a B road being used by large heavy goods vehicles. Route dictated by the council/highways after a company “Renew” moved into an adjacent farm and has been told to move, now under appeal.
58 b. “the standard of maintenance appropriate for a highway of that character and used by such traffic” The standard of repair of the carriageway is inappropriate for the use by that kind of traffic and has not been maintained. See pic 5
58 c.” the state of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway” A reasonable person would not expect to have to drive on the wrong side of the road to get around a 90degree bend to negotiate the potholes in the road. See pic 2.
58 d. “whether the highway authority knew, or could reasonably have been expected to know, that the condition of the part of the highway to which the action relates was likely to cause danger to users of the highway” The pot holes have been a continuous worry to the Parish Council of Ryton & Grindle who have repeatedly written to the council about them for many months. See Pic 3
58 e. “where the highway authority could not reasonably have been expected to repair that part of the highway before the cause of action arose, what warning notices of its condition had been displayed” The road had been repaired and sprayed with gravel in August, by a truck with chutes on the front of it, as witnessed by my independent witnesses of the accident. No warning signs are or have been in place to warn of the gravel.
Para 3. You state your client inspects the road every 3 months and you say they repaired pot holes at the accident site. The pot holes were four inches deep and in the middle of the carriageway. This is after only two months from inspection? This seems incredible! The repair on the inside of the corner is covered with gravel which has spread across the road.
Para 4. You state that the pot holes and gravel had emerged from the Apley Estate property adjacent to the road.
A survey was carried out on the road at the accident site on 22nd Oct 2015. Entering the bend at the accident site the road width is 4m. This 4m width was marked around the corner in white as displayed in pic 1 attached. As can be seen clearly the now repaired pot holes are in the middle of the Ryton bound side of the road. (Many more pictures and measurements available)
As can be seen the pot holes are not on Apley estate, the gravel on the road (sample taken) is not the same as the Apley Estate lane, but is the same as the repairs to pot holes in the road at the accident site and all the way from Grindle to Kemberton. (Photographed and physical samples taken) see pic 4
You state that your client has no duty to repair these defects, but they have done on 19th Oct, extremely well done and thank you.
Para 5. You state your client is not liable. In view of the evidence above I consider your client to be liable.
Para 6. You state that this letter is not the answer I am looking for. I was not looking for an answer as to who is responsible. I am making a claim against your client as the responsible party and have the evidence to prove this, backed up by independent witnesses. The life of this claim is as long as it takes for your client or liable party to admit liability and compensate me for my loss.
I operate as a self-employed Limited Company and have a day rate of £300/day and charge £10 per letter/email. I am sure you appreciate that my claim is increasing as time goes on.
Yours Faithfully,
Giles Greenwood
Bike Solicitor No 2;
Dear Giles,
Thank you for the emails and the copy correspondence. I have now reviewed the same I must advise you that I agree with your former solicitors advice this is a difficult and the 50/50 chance of success is, in my opinion, is the right assessment of the case. As such I am unable to accept instructions and take this matter on a CFA.
I am required to remind you of the Limitation Act 1980. This states that in personal injury claims Court Proceedings must be issued within 3 years of the accident date, you must ensure that County Court proceedings are issued before the third anniversary of the accident, to prevent the claim becoming time barred. After this time your claim will become “statute barred” meaning you will be highly unlikely to seek compensation from the Defendant.If you do not issue proceedings within this time period, then the claim will become time barred and you will not be able to proceed at any later date
I wish you well in the future.
Best wishes.
Victoria Mark LLB
Solicitor | Director
Lofthouse Mark Solicitors Limited
01947 881141
07740447868
So beware! Fall off and it's your fault you'll get nowhere!