Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dangerous defect in the public highway
112 views
Skip to first unread message
Ian Jackson
May 10, 2013, 1:20:02 PM5/10/13
to
What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
fixed ?
I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
repaired.
I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
welcome.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
fixed ?
I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
repaired.
I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
welcome.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Nightjar
May 11, 2013, 6:45:02 AM5/11/13
to
On 10/05/2013 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
>
If it is a trench, it is probably the responsibility of a utility,
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
>
rather than the Council. If it is fairly recent, it is probably also
only a temporary reinstatement. The ground in holes settles for a few
months and it is simply not possible to make a permanent, or often even
a fairly good, repair until it has.
Colin Bignell
rogerbl...@googlemail.com
May 11, 2013, 8:25:02 AM5/11/13
to
Have you contacted the local media?
Also contact your local Borough/Unitary/County Councillor, as your elected representative he may be able to exert pressure on the responsible council officer. Also worth bringing it to tthe attention of the relevant committee of your Parish/Town council.
Find out when your next local NAG meeting is and bring it up there.
Contact your local SUSTRANS office or representative.
in other words, get as many people and organisations to take up the cudgels on your behalf so the council roads dept get so sick of it they'll do something about it.
That's what campaigning means!
Also contact your local Borough/Unitary/County Councillor, as your elected representative he may be able to exert pressure on the responsible council officer. Also worth bringing it to tthe attention of the relevant committee of your Parish/Town council.
Find out when your next local NAG meeting is and bring it up there.
Contact your local SUSTRANS office or representative.
in other words, get as many people and organisations to take up the cudgels on your behalf so the council roads dept get so sick of it they'll do something about it.
That's what campaigning means!
Peter Crosland
May 11, 2013, 9:50:03 AM5/11/13
to
On 10/05/2013 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
Where is the 7 month delay specified? AFAIK you can serve a notice and
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
then apply to the magistrate after a reasonable time. Two week after
service would seem reasonable. It is then up to the highway authority to
attend court and make their case. Be warned that you might get lumbered
with costs if you lose your case.
Ian Jackson
May 11, 2013, 3:05:02 PM5/11/13
to
In article <ZZudnRB7c8__0RPM...@brightview.co.uk>,
they're responsible (which they can do up to 1 month later), I have to
wait 6 months before applying to the court.
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Where is the 7 month delay specified? AFAIK you can serve a notice and
>then apply to the magistrate after a reasonable time.
AFAICT I serve a s56 notice, and then if the council reply to admit
>Where is the 7 month delay specified? AFAIK you can serve a notice and
>then apply to the magistrate after a reasonable time.
they're responsible (which they can do up to 1 month later), I have to
wait 6 months before applying to the court.
Peter Crosland
May 12, 2013, 6:50:02 AM5/12/13
to
On 11/05/2013 20:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <ZZudnRB7c8__0RPM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Where is the 7 month delay specified? AFAIK you can serve a notice and
>> then apply to the magistrate after a reasonable time.
>
> AFAICT I serve a s56 notice, and then if the council reply to admit
> they're responsible (which they can do up to 1 month later), I have to
> wait 6 months before applying to the court.
Wrong. You can apply immediately assuming there really is genuine need
> In article <ZZudnRB7c8__0RPM...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Where is the 7 month delay specified? AFAIK you can serve a notice and
>> then apply to the magistrate after a reasonable time.
>
> AFAICT I serve a s56 notice, and then if the council reply to admit
> they're responsible (which they can do up to 1 month later), I have to
> wait 6 months before applying to the court.
for urgent repairs. Since the urgency is a matter of opinion then you
need to accept the risk that if the magistrates don't agree you may get
costs awarded against you.
Ian Jackson
May 12, 2013, 8:00:01 AM5/12/13
to
In article <CO2dnYYQEJ4h7xLM...@brightview.co.uk>,
But I went and looked it up again to quote it at you and (HA 1980):
56 ...
(4) If, within 1 month from the date of service on him of a notice
under subsection (1) [the complainant's initial notice -iwj]
above, the respondent serves on the complainant a notice
admitting both that the way or bridge in question is a highway
and that the respondent is liable to maintain it, the
complainant may, within 6 months from the date of service on
him of that notice, apply to a magistrates' court for an order
requiring the respondent, if the court finds that the highway
is out of repair, to put it in proper repair within such
reasonable period as may be specified in the order.
I think I must have misread the meaning of "within" the first time I
read this. Are you saying that the 6 month period here is a time
limit: ie, if the council admit it's a highway I can apply
immediately to the court for an order ?
In 56(2) "within" seems to be used differently:
(2) If, within 1 month from the date of service on him of a notice
under subsection (1) above, the respondent does not serve on
the complainant a notice admitting both that the way or bridge
in question is a highway and that the respondent is liable to
maintain it, the complainant may apply to the Crown Court for
an order requiring the respondent, if the court finds that the
way or bridge is a highway which the respondent is liable to
maintain and is out of repair, to put it in proper repair
within such reasonable period as may be specified in the order.
So I think what this means is that if the council don't reply, I have
to wait a month.
> Since the urgency is a matter of opinion then you need to accept the
>risk that if the magistrates don't agree you may get costs awarded
>against you.
I don't see anything in the Act about costs, nor about urgency.
Perhaps this is dealt with in the CPR.
But of course it's not usually wise, from a costs point of view, to
litigate if you're not confident the judge will agree with you.
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 11/05/2013 20:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>AFAICT I serve a s56 notice, and then if the council reply to admit
>>they're responsible (which they can do up to 1 month later), I have to
>>wait 6 months before applying to the court.
>
>Wrong. You can apply immediately assuming there really is genuine need
>for urgent repairs.
I was going to write "sounds good but where do you see it in the Act".
>On 11/05/2013 20:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>AFAICT I serve a s56 notice, and then if the council reply to admit
>>they're responsible (which they can do up to 1 month later), I have to
>>wait 6 months before applying to the court.
>
>Wrong. You can apply immediately assuming there really is genuine need
>for urgent repairs.
But I went and looked it up again to quote it at you and (HA 1980):
56 ...
(4) If, within 1 month from the date of service on him of a notice
under subsection (1) [the complainant's initial notice -iwj]
above, the respondent serves on the complainant a notice
admitting both that the way or bridge in question is a highway
and that the respondent is liable to maintain it, the
complainant may, within 6 months from the date of service on
him of that notice, apply to a magistrates' court for an order
requiring the respondent, if the court finds that the highway
is out of repair, to put it in proper repair within such
reasonable period as may be specified in the order.
I think I must have misread the meaning of "within" the first time I
read this. Are you saying that the 6 month period here is a time
limit: ie, if the council admit it's a highway I can apply
immediately to the court for an order ?
In 56(2) "within" seems to be used differently:
(2) If, within 1 month from the date of service on him of a notice
under subsection (1) above, the respondent does not serve on
the complainant a notice admitting both that the way or bridge
in question is a highway and that the respondent is liable to
maintain it, the complainant may apply to the Crown Court for
an order requiring the respondent, if the court finds that the
way or bridge is a highway which the respondent is liable to
maintain and is out of repair, to put it in proper repair
within such reasonable period as may be specified in the order.
So I think what this means is that if the council don't reply, I have
to wait a month.
> Since the urgency is a matter of opinion then you need to accept the
>risk that if the magistrates don't agree you may get costs awarded
>against you.
Perhaps this is dealt with in the CPR.
But of course it's not usually wise, from a costs point of view, to
litigate if you're not confident the judge will agree with you.
Doctor Dave
May 12, 2013, 8:30:02 AM5/12/13
to
I have to say that as a cyclist, the photo doesn't look at all bad - many of the roads I cycled on this morning have far worse hazards.
Francis Davey
May 12, 2013, 9:20:09 AM5/12/13
to
Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 13:00:01 UTC+1, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>
> I think I must have misread the meaning of "within" the first time I
>
> read this. Are you saying that the 6 month period here is a time
>
> limit: ie, if the council admit it's a highway I can apply
>
> immediately to the court for an order ?
>
That's right.
>
> I think I must have misread the meaning of "within" the first time I
>
> read this. Are you saying that the 6 month period here is a time
>
> limit: ie, if the council admit it's a highway I can apply
>
> immediately to the court for an order ?
>
>
>
> So I think what this means is that if the council don't reply, I have
>
> to wait a month.
Francis
Nightjar
May 12, 2013, 11:45:01 AM5/12/13
to
like, a permanent reinstatement should already be scheduled and that
will likely be accepted as being the earliest it will be practical to
make a good repair.
Colin Bignell
Fredxx
May 12, 2013, 9:00:05 AM5/12/13
to
they can't be bothered to reply, then I can't see why they shouldn't be
served with notice and can't see how costs can be awarded against you if
the council is derelict in it duties and playing dumb.
If they reply, then they will be smart enough to give a provisional
timescale of a repair, which as suggested, could be some time in the
future due to financial provisions. In which case I can't see you winning.
Judith
May 12, 2013, 12:35:02 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:00:01 +0100, ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian
Jackson) wrote:
<snip>
>But of course it's not usually wise, from a costs point of view, to
>litigate if you're not confident the judge will agree with you.
I suspect that if he is not a cyclist with thin wheels he may not agree with
you :-)
Jackson) wrote:
<snip>
>But of course it's not usually wise, from a costs point of view, to
>litigate if you're not confident the judge will agree with you.
you :-)
Patrick Gosling
May 12, 2013, 12:45:02 PM5/12/13
to
In article <ys-dnc7Rx6HMJRLM...@giganews.com>,
think there's anything very temporary about it.
It is surprisingly deceptive - I cycled past it last week and it looked
really innocent; but once your wheel gets into the trench, any attempt
to get out sideways kicks you sideways (and into the other side wall).
And if you _do_ clip one or other side, it starts a sequence of such
oscillations that's phenomenally difficult to control. I was amazed
that I didn't come off my bike when it happened to me.
In an odd way, the most dangerous aspect of it is how un-dangerous
it looks.
-patrick.
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>Bear in mind that if this is a temporary reinstatement, which it looks
>like, a permanent reinstatement should already be scheduled and that
>will likely be accepted as being the earliest it will be practical to
>make a good repair.
I had a very nasty moment in that "trench" last September, so I don't
>Bear in mind that if this is a temporary reinstatement, which it looks
>like, a permanent reinstatement should already be scheduled and that
>will likely be accepted as being the earliest it will be practical to
>make a good repair.
think there's anything very temporary about it.
It is surprisingly deceptive - I cycled past it last week and it looked
really innocent; but once your wheel gets into the trench, any attempt
to get out sideways kicks you sideways (and into the other side wall).
And if you _do_ clip one or other side, it starts a sequence of such
oscillations that's phenomenally difficult to control. I was amazed
that I didn't come off my bike when it happened to me.
In an odd way, the most dangerous aspect of it is how un-dangerous
it looks.
-patrick.
Nightjar
May 12, 2013, 7:00:06 PM5/12/13
to
On 12/05/2013 17:45, Patrick Gosling wrote:
> In article <ys-dnc7Rx6HMJRLM...@giganews.com>,
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> Bear in mind that if this is a temporary reinstatement, which it looks
>> like, a permanent reinstatement should already be scheduled and that
>> will likely be accepted as being the earliest it will be practical to
>> make a good repair.
>
> I had a very nasty moment in that "trench" last September, so I don't
> think there's anything very temporary about it.
In terms of reinstatement, temporary simply means it is not the finished
> In article <ys-dnc7Rx6HMJRLM...@giganews.com>,
> Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>> Bear in mind that if this is a temporary reinstatement, which it looks
>> like, a permanent reinstatement should already be scheduled and that
>> will likely be accepted as being the earliest it will be practical to
>> make a good repair.
>
> I had a very nasty moment in that "trench" last September, so I don't
> think there's anything very temporary about it.
job. There is no implied time period, although, depending upon the sub
soil, the allowance for settlement would not normally be more than a few
months and more probably would only be a few weeks. However, the timing
of a final reinstatement, or whether it is worth doing one at all, can
be affected by factors such as whether another utility has lodged plans
to do work along the same stretch of road or the council is planning to
do resurfacing work. At least, that was the case when I worked for a
utility several decades ago.
Colin Bignell
Andy Champ
May 13, 2013, 5:35:01 AM5/13/13
to
On 10/05/2013 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
This is a dangerous thing to post in a group full of lawyers, but AAUI
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
the presence of the posting on fix my street can be used as evidence
when suing the council for the injuries sustained. It appears it's put
more than one cyclist off their bikes, one with injuries that would
prevent further cycling. I hope he's claiming for a taxi from the
council - that would concentrate their minds a little.
Andy
The Todal
May 13, 2013, 8:20:02 AM5/13/13
to
On 10/5/13 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
>
Have you contacted the Highways Department and pointed out the defect to
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
> to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
> welcome.
>
them (by phone and/or in writing) and with what response?
Most councils have Highways Departments which are responsive and
approachable, and I have never heard of anyone serving formal notices
and asking the Magistrates to look at photos and decide whether a bit of
carriageway looks dangerous. That seems quite unnecessary unless there
has been a firm decision from the Highways Manager that he regards the
carriageway as safe and has no intention of changing anything.
Scion
May 13, 2013, 6:50:01 AM5/13/13
to
Ian Jackson put finger to keyboard:
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up to
> 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be welcome.
Someone's been a bit naughty in the "updates" section!
> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
> fixed ?
>
> I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up to
> 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
> repaired.
>
> I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
> County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be welcome.
Ian Jackson
May 13, 2013, 7:55:02 AM5/13/13
to
In article <xI2dnSZ9bKbkLg3M...@eclipse.net.uk>,
discovered that it was the same trench after I had reported the trench
following the "1st" cyclist's broken arm, and the "2nd" cyclist
happened to come across the report on fixmystreet. Both "1st" and
"2nd" victims were unable to cycle for some weeks.
But yes, you are right. I have suggested to the third victim that
they have a claim against the County Council, if they suffered injury
or damage.
This is a very good reason to use fixmystreet rather than the local
council's own reporting system. Fixmystreet makes the reports and
dates public, and thus brings road users together in trying to get
things fixed - whereas the councils' systems normally keep them
secret, atomising and disempowering (in this respect) the citizenry.
I delivered my Highways Act s56 notice to the Cambridgeshire County
Council offices on my way past last night. Bizarrely I found it hard
to find the letterbox !
Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>This is a dangerous thing to post in a group full of lawyers, but AAUI
>the presence of the posting on fix my street can be used as evidence
>when suing the council for the injuries sustained. It appears it's put
>more than one cyclist off their bikes, one with injuries that would
>prevent further cycling. I hope he's claiming for a taxi from the
>council - that would concentrate their minds a little.
The "2nd" cyclist was actually injured in December. We only
>This is a dangerous thing to post in a group full of lawyers, but AAUI
>the presence of the posting on fix my street can be used as evidence
>when suing the council for the injuries sustained. It appears it's put
>more than one cyclist off their bikes, one with injuries that would
>prevent further cycling. I hope he's claiming for a taxi from the
>council - that would concentrate their minds a little.
discovered that it was the same trench after I had reported the trench
following the "1st" cyclist's broken arm, and the "2nd" cyclist
happened to come across the report on fixmystreet. Both "1st" and
"2nd" victims were unable to cycle for some weeks.
But yes, you are right. I have suggested to the third victim that
they have a claim against the County Council, if they suffered injury
or damage.
This is a very good reason to use fixmystreet rather than the local
council's own reporting system. Fixmystreet makes the reports and
dates public, and thus brings road users together in trying to get
things fixed - whereas the councils' systems normally keep them
secret, atomising and disempowering (in this respect) the citizenry.
I delivered my Highways Act s56 notice to the Cambridgeshire County
Council offices on my way past last night. Bizarrely I found it hard
to find the letterbox !
Ian Jackson
May 13, 2013, 8:40:02 AM5/13/13
to
In article <avc3uq...@mid.individual.net>,
fixmystreet it email it to the council. This is documented on the
fixmystreet page:
Reported in the Potholes category by Ian Jackson
at 16:49, Friday 8 March 2013
Sent to Cambridgeshire County Council 1 minute later
>Most councils have Highways Departments which are responsive and
>approachable, and I have never heard of anyone serving formal notices
>and asking the Magistrates to look at photos and decide whether a bit of
>carriageway looks dangerous. That seems quite unnecessary unless there
>has been a firm decision from the Highways Manager that he regards the
>carriageway as safe and has no intention of changing anything.
Well, I reported it in March and nothing has been done.
Escalating it informally seems all very well but why not do so
formally ?
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>On 10/5/13 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
>> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
>>fixed ?
...
>On 10/5/13 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
>> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
>>fixed ?
>Have you contacted the Highways Department and pointed out the defect to
>them (by phone and/or in writing) and with what response?
Yes. I used fixmystreet to do so: when you report an incident at
>them (by phone and/or in writing) and with what response?
fixmystreet it email it to the council. This is documented on the
fixmystreet page:
Reported in the Potholes category by Ian Jackson
at 16:49, Friday 8 March 2013
Sent to Cambridgeshire County Council 1 minute later
>Most councils have Highways Departments which are responsive and
>approachable, and I have never heard of anyone serving formal notices
>and asking the Magistrates to look at photos and decide whether a bit of
>carriageway looks dangerous. That seems quite unnecessary unless there
>has been a firm decision from the Highways Manager that he regards the
>carriageway as safe and has no intention of changing anything.
Escalating it informally seems all very well but why not do so
formally ?
The Todal
May 13, 2013, 9:50:02 AM5/13/13
to
On 13/5/13 13:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <avc3uq...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 10/5/13 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
>>> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
>>> fixed ?
> ....
> In article <avc3uq...@mid.individual.net>,
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> On 10/5/13 18:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
>>> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
>>> fixed ?
>> Have you contacted the Highways Department and pointed out the defect to
>> them (by phone and/or in writing) and with what response?
>
> Yes. I used fixmystreet to do so: when you report an incident at
> fixmystreet it email it to the council. This is documented on the
> fixmystreet page:
> Reported in the Potholes category by Ian Jackson
> at 16:49, Friday 8 March 2013
> Sent to Cambridgeshire County Council 1 minute later
>
>> Most councils have Highways Departments which are responsive and
>> approachable, and I have never heard of anyone serving formal notices
>> and asking the Magistrates to look at photos and decide whether a bit of
>> carriageway looks dangerous. That seems quite unnecessary unless there
>> has been a firm decision from the Highways Manager that he regards the
>> carriageway as safe and has no intention of changing anything.
>
> Well, I reported it in March and nothing has been done.
>
> Escalating it informally seems all very well but why not do so
> formally ?
>
Well, on a purely pragmatic basis, there have been public spending custs
>> them (by phone and/or in writing) and with what response?
>
> Yes. I used fixmystreet to do so: when you report an incident at
> fixmystreet it email it to the council. This is documented on the
> fixmystreet page:
> Reported in the Potholes category by Ian Jackson
> at 16:49, Friday 8 March 2013
> Sent to Cambridgeshire County Council 1 minute later
>
>> Most councils have Highways Departments which are responsive and
>> approachable, and I have never heard of anyone serving formal notices
>> and asking the Magistrates to look at photos and decide whether a bit of
>> carriageway looks dangerous. That seems quite unnecessary unless there
>> has been a firm decision from the Highways Manager that he regards the
>> carriageway as safe and has no intention of changing anything.
>
> Well, I reported it in March and nothing has been done.
>
> Escalating it informally seems all very well but why not do so
> formally ?
>
and staff reductions, they probably have hundreds of defect reports to
see to, and they probably give priority to those reported by their
Highways Inspector because he will have measured the defect and found it
to be above or below the intervention level. It wouldn't surprise me if
they ignored emails from Fixmystreet unless it was an especially slow
day and there were lots of staff on duty.
If your aim is to get the defect fixed rather than to embarrass the
highway authority by getting a court order, you could pick up the phone,
speak to a highways inspector or technician or whatever job title they
currently have, and ask whether this one is on his "to do" list and
explain that you think it is very dangerous.
Message has been deleted
Ian Jackson
May 13, 2013, 1:00:04 PM5/13/13
to
In article <avc94f...@mid.individual.net>,
potholes. I think this one must have fallen into the "this one is
difficult, put it aside" trap . Or maybe it was just a busy day, I
guess.
>If your aim is to get the defect fixed rather than to embarrass the
>highway authority by getting a court order, you could pick up the phone,
>speak to a highways inspector or technician or whatever job title they
>currently have, and ask whether this one is on his "to do" list and
>explain that you think it is very dangerous.
Well given that my initial report mentioned that someone had already
broken their arm, I would have thought that was obvious.
But maybe you are right that I should have chased it up "nicely".
AIUI the 3rd victim is doing that.
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>Well, on a purely pragmatic basis, there have been public spending custs
>and staff reductions, they probably have hundreds of defect reports to
>see to, and they probably give priority to those reported by their
>Highways Inspector because he will have measured the defect and found it
>to be above or below the intervention level. It wouldn't surprise me if
>they ignored emails from Fixmystreet unless it was an especially slow
>day and there were lots of staff on duty.
They don't seem to ignore fixmystreet mails when they relate to
>Well, on a purely pragmatic basis, there have been public spending custs
>and staff reductions, they probably have hundreds of defect reports to
>see to, and they probably give priority to those reported by their
>Highways Inspector because he will have measured the defect and found it
>to be above or below the intervention level. It wouldn't surprise me if
>they ignored emails from Fixmystreet unless it was an especially slow
>day and there were lots of staff on duty.
potholes. I think this one must have fallen into the "this one is
difficult, put it aside" trap . Or maybe it was just a busy day, I
guess.
>If your aim is to get the defect fixed rather than to embarrass the
>highway authority by getting a court order, you could pick up the phone,
>speak to a highways inspector or technician or whatever job title they
>currently have, and ask whether this one is on his "to do" list and
>explain that you think it is very dangerous.
broken their arm, I would have thought that was obvious.
But maybe you are right that I should have chased it up "nicely".
AIUI the 3rd victim is doing that.
Judith
May 13, 2013, 6:25:02 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:40:02 +0100, ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian
Jackson) wrote:
<snip>
>Well, I reported it in March and nothing has been done.
>
>Escalating it informally seems all very well but why not do so
>formally ?
Yes - you could write to them "formally"
Have you written to them and drawn their attention to the fact that you
reported it on 8th March and nothing appears to have been done? also you could
ask for their timescales or ask are their any problems with them addressing the
issue?
(I recognise the name of the other complainant. I wonder is it someone you
know? If it is, is there a danger that some could incorrectly conclude that
you were in cahoots to get some compensation from the council: I am certainly
not suggesting that that is the case - but it may seem odd if you do know each
other)
Jackson) wrote:
<snip>
>Well, I reported it in March and nothing has been done.
>
>Escalating it informally seems all very well but why not do so
>formally ?
Have you written to them and drawn their attention to the fact that you
reported it on 8th March and nothing appears to have been done? also you could
ask for their timescales or ask are their any problems with them addressing the
issue?
(I recognise the name of the other complainant. I wonder is it someone you
know? If it is, is there a danger that some could incorrectly conclude that
you were in cahoots to get some compensation from the council: I am certainly
not suggesting that that is the case - but it may seem odd if you do know each
other)
Judith
May 13, 2013, 6:30:01 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:40:02 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> considered Mon, 13 May 2013 14:50:02
>That's exactly what a report on fixmystreet does, and once it's
>reported they have a mandatory duty to repair it.
>Since they have apparently decided to neglect their mandatory duty,
>and have thereby caused several serious injuries to road users, the
>only way forward seems to be through the courts.
>
>It's the county council that have created this problem through their
>neglect of the roads, not the people who are seeking to make them do
>their job.
Yes - but you have to accept that there is a limit to the amount of money to be
spent on such things. They could well have assessed the danger and considered
that it is low down on the list of priorities. Surely a careful cyclist would
see the "rut" and keep well clear of it. It is just the same as avoiding tram
tracks.
>The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> considered Mon, 13 May 2013 14:50:02
>reported they have a mandatory duty to repair it.
>Since they have apparently decided to neglect their mandatory duty,
>and have thereby caused several serious injuries to road users, the
>only way forward seems to be through the courts.
>
>It's the county council that have created this problem through their
>neglect of the roads, not the people who are seeking to make them do
>their job.
Yes - but you have to accept that there is a limit to the amount of money to be
spent on such things. They could well have assessed the danger and considered
that it is low down on the list of priorities. Surely a careful cyclist would
see the "rut" and keep well clear of it. It is just the same as avoiding tram
tracks.
Graham Murray
May 14, 2013, 1:25:01 AM5/14/13
to
Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
> Yes - but you have to accept that there is a limit to the amount of money to be
> spent on such things. They could well have assessed the danger and considered
> that it is low down on the list of priorities. Surely a careful cyclist would
> see the "rut" and keep well clear of it. It is just the same as avoiding tram
> tracks.
True, but I strongly suspect that if the responsibility were on someone
> Yes - but you have to accept that there is a limit to the amount of money to be
> spent on such things. They could well have assessed the danger and considered
> that it is low down on the list of priorities. Surely a careful cyclist would
> see the "rut" and keep well clear of it. It is just the same as avoiding tram
> tracks.
else (eg the utility who did the original works) then I suspect that the
council would not accept an excuse such as "there is insufficient funds
in this year's budget, so we cannot do it until next year" for delaying
the work. So why should a council be able to use such an excuse?
The Todal
May 14, 2013, 6:30:05 AM5/14/13
to
that progress will be much faster. The highways department will be asked
for a report and someone will have to assess, very quickly, whether a
repair is required.
Of course, nobody can seek compensation unless they have sustained an
injury or property damage. Nobody gets compensation merely for seeing a
defect and reporting it.
Being in cahoots, in the sense of wanting to assist a person who has had
an injury, surely can only be a good thing.
Message has been deleted
Judith
May 14, 2013, 9:50:02 AM5/14/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 18:20:02 +0100, ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian
Jackson) wrote:
>What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
>fixed ?
>
Jackson) wrote:
>What should we (local campaigners) do to get this
> http://www.fixmystreet.com/report/331508
>fixed ?
>
>I looked at the Highways Act 1980 s56, but AFAICT that might take up
>to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
>repaired.
>
>I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
>County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
>welcome.
It looks like legal action (or threat of) will not be required. From Fix my
>to 7 months before I can even apply to a court for an order that it be
>repaired.
>
>I intend to serve the s56(1) notice ASAP anyway - it might spur the
>County Council into action - but any other suggestions would be
>welcome.
street today:
I have received this from the County: `The area has been inspected and a works
order will be raised to carry out carriageway patching between Buchan St and St
Kilda Ave'.
Posted by Douglas de Lacey at 09:43 today
So well done to M de Lacey for a non-legal solution; I think this is always the
best way if possible.
Roland Perry
May 14, 2013, 1:20:01 PM5/14/13
to
In message <11g4p8t59ennbnuag...@4ax.com>, at 14:50:02 on
Tue, 14 May 2013, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 14 May 2013, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>I have received this from the County: `The area has been inspected and a works
>order will be raised to carry out carriageway patching between Buchan St and St
>Kilda Ave'.
>Posted by Douglas de Lacey at 09:43 today
>
>So well done to M de Lacey for a non-legal solution; I think this is always the
>best way if possible.
Douglas is a local councillor.
>order will be raised to carry out carriageway patching between Buchan St and St
>Kilda Ave'.
>Posted by Douglas de Lacey at 09:43 today
>
>So well done to M de Lacey for a non-legal solution; I think this is always the
>best way if possible.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
May 14, 2013, 4:05:08 PM5/14/13
to
On 2013-05-14, The Todal wrote:
> If there is a claim for compensation for an injury it is quite likely
> that progress will be much faster. The highways department will be asked
> for a report and someone will have to assess, very quickly, whether a
> repair is required.
>
> Of course, nobody can seek compensation unless they have sustained an
> injury or property damage. Nobody gets compensation merely for seeing a
> defect and reporting it.
Of course, it would be better if people could force councils to fix
> If there is a claim for compensation for an injury it is quite likely
> that progress will be much faster. The highways department will be asked
> for a report and someone will have to assess, very quickly, whether a
> repair is required.
>
> Of course, nobody can seek compensation unless they have sustained an
> injury or property damage. Nobody gets compensation merely for seeing a
> defect and reporting it.
things instead of only being able to sue for compensation.
Some years back I visited a relative who was in hospital for a broken
arm caused by stumbling (completely sober, in case you're wondering)
over a dodgy bit of pavement. The jerk visiting the adjacent patient
said to us, "You ought to sue the council."
I said, "Do you live around here? Pay council tax?"
"Um, yes."
"Well, is that a good way to spend your money?"
Grumbling sounds, no more conversation with me.
Percy Picacity
May 14, 2013, 5:30:02 PM5/14/13
to
bricklayer and couldn't work for three months? If the council knew
about the irregularity in the pavement and failed to properly
prioritise its repair is it not fair that they should pay compensation?
Rather the the bricklayer and the DWP share the loss?
--
Percy Picacity
The Todal
May 15, 2013, 4:00:01 AM5/15/13
to
pavements are in a shockingly bad condition with irregular paving stones
and potholes everywhere, which suggests that the highway authority there
can't be sued.
In the UK there is a straightforward well-used system of statute and
case law. If there is a trip of 20mm or more, the court is likely to
regard it as dangerous and the highway authority will escape liability
only if it can show that there was a system of highway inspections and
that it worked correctly.
Millions of pounds are paid out by highway authorities and their
insurers and I think it is rather unfair to rebuke any individual victim
for seeking confirmation when their claim is likely to be a mere drop in
the ocean.
Francis Davey
May 15, 2013, 4:00:09 AM5/15/13
to
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 18:20:01 UTC+1, Roland Perry a écrit :
> Douglas is a local councillor.
>
.... and is "Dr de Lacey" as it happens.
> Douglas is a local councillor.
>
He was my boss a while back. Great man.
Francis
Lordgnome
May 15, 2013, 3:50:02 AM5/15/13
to
council or police are sued, it is always the taxpayer who foots the
bill. All the authorities have to do is shrug, jack up the precept
(again) and move on.
It might help if individuals involved in failure were to share some of
the burden - either financially of by loss of employment.
Les.
The Todal
May 15, 2013, 6:30:02 AM5/15/13
to
You could with equal logic say that if someone crashes their car in a
moment of inattention they should be punished by losing their licence
and/or their job.
There is no possibility of abolishing all negligent acts. A highway
authority that manages to repair all defects in all the highways before
any accidents happen would be, well, a Council of Perfection.
Percy Picacity
May 15, 2013, 7:25:02 AM5/15/13
to
person's isolated act of commission or omission is soley responsible
for a failure of service. Mostly these are the result of systems
failure, as you need a system, rather than an individual acting alone,
to achieve more than about 90% success. People are simply not good
enough at consistency.
--
Percy Picacity
Lordgnome
May 15, 2013, 7:30:01 AM5/15/13
to
On 15/05/2013 11:30, The Todal wrote:
>
>> In various ways, you are both right - but I take the point that when the
>> council or police are sued, it is always the taxpayer who foots the
>> bill. All the authorities have to do is shrug, jack up the precept
>> (again) and move on.
>> It might help if individuals involved in failure were to share some of
>> the burden - either financially of by loss of employment.
>>
>
> No, it really wouldn't help at all.
>
> You could with equal logic say that if someone crashes their car in a
> moment of inattention they should be punished by losing their licence
> and/or their job.
>
Is that not precisely what happens? The "someone must be to blame"
>
>> In various ways, you are both right - but I take the point that when the
>> council or police are sued, it is always the taxpayer who foots the
>> bill. All the authorities have to do is shrug, jack up the precept
>> (again) and move on.
>> It might help if individuals involved in failure were to share some of
>> the burden - either financially of by loss of employment.
>>
>
> No, it really wouldn't help at all.
>
> You could with equal logic say that if someone crashes their car in a
> moment of inattention they should be punished by losing their licence
> and/or their job.
>
syndrome? But alas, it seems mainly applicable to motorists. Are you
implying that car prangs should be born by the general taxpayer as well?
Les.
The Todal
May 15, 2013, 7:45:01 AM5/15/13
to
It's been a while since I had any sort of car accident but I did once
collide with the rear of another car. And on at least one occasion
another car has collided with the rear of my car. In my experience the
police don't pursue charges unless there has been a serious injury.
Nobody gets "punished" except by claiming off their motor insurance and
losing their no claims discount.
If you imposed "punishments", eg three points on your licence for
colliding with the gatepost, I very much doubt if you'd reduce the
number of accidents but you'd have a lot of extra bureaucracy and a lot
of unhappy motorists.
In relation to highway defects, if there is any "blame" it usually falls
upon the highways inspector. He walks down many streets, looking for
defects to report. Sometimes he judges a defect to be minor and in
hindsight the lawyers will disagree with him. If he reports absolutely
every hole and every protruding paving stone, he could double or
quadruple the council's annual repair bill. And new potholes and
tripping hazards form all the time. Tree roots, rainwater freezing and
expanding, the sun causing bubbles in tarmac, vehicles mounting the
pavement and dislodging kerbs and paving stones, utilities digging up
the road and then reinstating the surface. I'm just glad that most of
our roads are a lot better than what I saw in Boston, USA.
Graham Murray
May 15, 2013, 7:55:01 AM5/15/13
to
Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> writes:
> And speaking as an ex public servant, it is rare indeed that one
> person's isolated act of commission or omission is soley responsible
> for a failure of service. Mostly these are the result of systems
> failure, as you need a system, rather than an individual acting alone,
> to achieve more than about 90% success. People are simply not good
> enough at consistency.
So, rather than, or as well as, a financial penalty maybe the courts
> And speaking as an ex public servant, it is rare indeed that one
> person's isolated act of commission or omission is soley responsible
> for a failure of service. Mostly these are the result of systems
> failure, as you need a system, rather than an individual acting alone,
> to achieve more than about 90% success. People are simply not good
> enough at consistency.
should order that the flaws in the "system" be addressed.
Graham Murray
May 15, 2013, 8:00:01 AM5/15/13
to
The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> writes:
> Millions of pounds are paid out by highway authorities and their
> insurers and I think it is rather unfair to rebuke any individual
> victim for seeking confirmation when their claim is likely to be a
> mere drop in the ocean.
So maybe one solution would be to 'hit' their 'bottom line' and make the
> Millions of pounds are paid out by highway authorities and their
> insurers and I think it is rather unfair to rebuke any individual
> victim for seeking confirmation when their claim is likely to be a
> mere drop in the ocean.
level of fine/compensation high enough so that it is cheaper for the
authorities to fix the problems in a timely manner[1] than to pay
compensation for the breaches of safety.
[1] Or better still, have a system of preventative maintenance to keep
the surfaces in good repair so that, for example, small cracks are fixed
before they can grow into potholes.
Sara
May 15, 2013, 9:55:02 AM5/15/13
to
In article <871u987...@einstein.gmurray.org.uk>,
If that were the case, you can bet your life the Daily Wail would be
full of stories of Councils wasting money on unnecessary work.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
full of stories of Councils wasting money on unnecessary work.
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Judith
May 15, 2013, 3:20:01 PM5/15/13
to
Adam Funk
May 15, 2013, 4:05:02 PM5/15/13
to
low-quality employer who will just say "get stuffed if you're going to
be off sick". But it would be better just to fix problems before
having to pay compensation.
0 new messages