Castle Hill, eS ‘Cambridge, ‘Wednesday, 25" August 2010 CB3 0AP ‘Your ref: PUB/JL09/0621 Dear Mr Woolley, I write further to your letter dated 19” May 2010 in which you denied liabil Cambridgeshire County Council for damage suffered to my vehicle and thereby rejected my claim for compensation, After obtai jing additional information under the FOIA, I am of the view that Cambridgeshire County Council have not fulfilled their statutory duty to maintain and repair the Highway to a reasonable standard in this case as per section 58 of the Highways ‘Act. I base this contention on the following grounds: A report from a member of the public and recorded by Cambridgeshire County Council on I March 2010 stated that there were, “several very severe potholes” at the location where damage to my vehicle occurred. In light of this defect which Cambridgeshire County Council were aware of, best practice i cates that remedial work should have been carried out within 24 hours. This is supported by the following: - a) » °°) ‘The Well-maintained Highways 2005 document states, “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 same working day for defects notified before noon and the end of the following working day for later notifications. Such defects will include: [amongst others} @ pothole, treneh or other abrupt carriageway level difference exceeding 40mm in all road categories of a size and location likely to cause loss of control;” The Network Management Leaflet No. 5 (April 2010) produced by Cambridgeshire County Council provides a table of risk assessments and response times. The fact that there were reported “several” potholes in the highway reasonably indicates the probability of a risk occurring as high and the “severe” description reasonably suggests that the impact of the defect was also high. This produces the result, “Category 1 (score of 16): make safe or repair within 24 hours”. ‘The above response times are consistent with standards set by other councils. ‘The Cheshire East Council Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections provides example cases stating “24 hours make safe” for potholes “equal to or greater than 50mm”. I have enclosed this excerpt from the document,Despite Cambridgeshire County Council being made aware of the defect, the clear Code of Practice and the photographs I provided with my claim showing the potholes existed well in excess of 40-50mm, repair work was not carried out until 10" March 2010, nine days after the initial report had been received. This considerable period of neglect shows Cambridgeshire County Council to be i non-compliance with their duty to repair the Highway to a reasonable standard in this case and it is within this timeframe that my vehicle suffered damage. The Well Maintained Highways 2005 document states, “Authorities should develop, and implement an inspection and survey regime to provide accurate, timely and relevant information on the condition of the highway network, including cycle routes and footways, as a basis for assessment of local maintenance need. The regime should include regular safety inspections and condition surveys as a minimum.” Unfortunately, in response to my FOIA request, Cambridgeshire County Council has been unable to provide evidence that condition surveys have been undertaken. Without such condition surveys to determine condition of the road structure and surface, a Highway Asset Management Plan to assist in long and short-term maintenance planning cannot be formulated. This shows Cambridgeshire County Council to be in non-compliance with their duty to maintain the Highway to a reasonable standard in this case. In your letter dated 19 May 2010, you advised that Puddock Road is inspected quarterly. ‘The last inspection that I'am aware of took place on 9” December 2009 therefore making the next inspection due by 9" March 2010 (I am unaware if this took place or not). Despite the scheduled inspection, there were a further six reports of potholes from the public, some described as “very dangerous” and “could Kill a motorcyclist”, during the subsequent period 15" March - 6" April 2010. It is confirmed through the photographs T supplied that some of these potholes were the same ones present as at early March. The safety inspection process currently in place is therefore seen to be failing to identify defects This shows Cambridgeshire County Council to be in non-compliance with their duty to maintain and repair the Highway to a reasonable standard in this case. As of today there is a significant pothole present in Puddock Road along with numerous areas of severe subsidence, crowning and gaps in the road surface (photographic evidence can be provided if necessary). 1e response of Cambridgeshire County Council has been to place cones in the vicinity of the worst defects with the apparent longer term strategy of erecting advisory 3Smph speed limit signs along a stretch of the road. Whilst this approach warns motorists of the defects in limited areas, it does not address the clear underlying problem of persistent defects forming in the road. Tam certain that any reasonable person or condition survey would determine that the road an accident waiting to happen due to lack of maintenance and furthermore that Cambridgeshire County Council are aware of this fact.This shows Cambridgeshire County Council to be in non-compliance with their duty to maintain the Highway to a reasonable standard in this case. It is my contention that each of the above findings show there is not a defence under section 58 of the Highways Act in this case and that Cambridgeshire County Council are liable for the damage suffered to my vehicle. | request a review of the decision to deny liability at the earliest opportunity and would be prepared to accept a compromise figure as settlement of my compensation claim for damage suffered to my vehicle. J look forward to your response. Yours sincerely,