By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
A Cotswold resident who claims his vehicle suffered £189.60 of damage says highways chiefs could cost the taxpayer thousands of pounds by not settling his case.
Richard Broadbent put in a claim to Gloucestershire County Council after the wheel of his Volkswagen Golf was damaged last year.
His wife was taking his daughter to school when she hit a pothole on Poulton Road near Quenington on May 24, 2023.
He says dashcam evidence shows she was “driving like a vicar” and well within the speed limit.
“She has a faultless 24 year driving record,” he said. “The wheel and tyre of the car were damaged.
“We reported the pothole, fixed the damage, and made a claim of £189.60. The council conducted a ‘next working day’ repair, and promised us a ‘thorough investigation’ of the incident.”
Mr Broadbent, who is a former Metropolitan Police officer, said he offered the council his dashcam footage but they declined to look at it. And the council declined his claim and claimed it had protection under Section 58 of the 1980 Highways Act.
He challenged the claim and was declined again, for the same reason, he says.
“This reason (Section 58) is given by the council for, as far as I can tell, 100 per cent of pothole damage claims.
“It’s basically a ‘first line of defence’, and in my opinion, an abuse of the legislation. I raised a claim through HM Courts Service.”
Mr Broadbent says he investigated the council’s data on that particular road and established that in the previous eight months it had a rate of incident approximately 80 times the average across the county’s road network.
“Specifically on September 8, 2022, January 20 and 21 in 2023, April 26, 2023, May 3, 2023, and then me on May 24, 2023,” he said.
“From this I concluded that it was unreasonable for the council to claim a Section 58 defence, since this would require the court to consider, amongst other things, if the road was in a ‘state
of repair in which a reasonable person would have expected to find the highway’.
“Clearly the evidence indicates that it was not.”
Mr Broadbent claims the council’s lawyers “hit back hard” and questioned whether “there was even an incident at all”.
“I have this on video,” he said. “I supplied a receipt, and photos of the damage, and if there was a pothole at all. I have photos, and they came out to repair it.
“I asked to discuss the matter with them to avoid the need for a trial. They declined.
“I proposed mediation, as advised by the court. They declined.”
Mr Broadbent said the authority spent £303 on May 22 to postpone the court date as they claim one of their witnesses is ill.
“£303 on top of probably at least another £750 in legal fees to defend a £189.60 which I honestly believe they will lose,” he said.
“It’s unbelievable, irrational, and incredibly wasteful.”
Mr Broadbent believes the council is so blinded by determination to deflect liability for pothole damage in all of its cases that it is willing to squander public funds simply to cultivate a reputation that it is not to be messed with.
“The refusal to either discuss the matter or engage in mediation is pretty concerning, and characteristic of their ‘hard-fighting’, adversarial mentality,” he said.
“I also believe that by focusing exclusively on whether it may technically have a legal defence against a claim is preventing the council from conducting effective investigations into road conditions that might reduce incidents in the future.
“After all, why would a highways person investigate an incident when they already know what the answer is, and will always be ‘not liable’?
“I believe a minimum basic standard of an investigation should include establishing if the incident was part of a pattern. Clearly, and statistically, it was.
“Also, it is surely reasonable that overall claim rates and road quality would inversely correlate better roads equal fewer claims, but apparently not in Gloucestershire where claims continue to rise and the liability continues to fall.”
The council says the claimant has had considerable contact with them and at all stages and the authority says they have responded to his requests and provided the information and data to support their position.
A spokesperson for Gloucestershire County Council said: “We have reviewed this claim and our actions in maintaining this section of road.
“We are in the process of responding to the court action brought forward by the claimant, and therefore cannot comment any further at this time for legal reasons.”