Cyclist leaves council in a hole

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cyclist%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

Quoted message said:

No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
paid for their bad advice.

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:08 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

No idea about that council, but in Edinburgh the council claim they
are contesting more claims.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Hazardous-streets-lead-to-3m.3637084.jp

"However, the number of successful claims for road and pavement
defects has fallen in recent years as the council has adopted a
tougher stance and is now contesting the majority of claims."

Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cyclist%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

"A judge has criticised a council for spending hundreds of pounds
fighting a £90 compensation claim made by a cyclist.

"Andy Hillier, 30, was riding to work when his rear wheel was
wrecked as he hit a pothole in Uxbridge Road. The journalist had to
push his £500 Marin bike back home before travelling to work by Tube
after the accident in June.

He wrecked his rear wheel and tyre on a 3.5cm pothole?
And he was previously aware of the pothole, had he informed the council
about it?

I do think the council should make an effort to fix potholes, but I
don't think its reasonable to expect the roads to be maintained to
"bowling green standard".

In article <[email hidden]>, Craig Wallace
craigw84@fast_nospam_mail.fm says...

Quoted message said:

He wrecked his rear wheel and tyre on a 3.5cm pothole?
And he was previously aware of the pothole, had he informed the council
about it?

Sounds like unsafe riding in traffic, poor technique and an
underinflated tyre to me.

Craig Wallace said:

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cyclist%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"A judge has criticised a council for spending hundreds of pounds
fighting a £90 compensation claim made by a cyclist.

"Andy Hillier, 30, was riding to work when his rear wheel was
wrecked as he hit a pothole in Uxbridge Road. The journalist had to
push his £500 Marin bike back home before travelling to work by Tube
after the accident in June.

He wrecked his rear wheel and tyre on a 3.5cm pothole?
And he was previously aware of the pothole, had he informed the council
about it?

I do think the council should make an effort to fix potholes, but I
don't think its reasonable to expect the roads to be maintained to
"bowling green standard".

Agree.

We want decent education, decent social services, decent policing,
reasonable rubbish collection and many other services from our councils. We
don't like paying council tax. Our councils have to decide on funding
priorities. On the whole, Britain's roads are considerably better
than 'good enough'.

Mind you, spending a hundred quid on wease^Wlawyers to defend a ninety quid
claim does not look like good use of public funds either.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
[ Disclaimer: This is a work displacement exercise. Please feel free ]
[ to reply either on or off group. Expect lengthy replies until the ]
[ deadline has passed. Thank-you for your cooperation. ]

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:08 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

No idea about that council, but in Edinburgh the council claim they
are contesting more claims.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Hazardous-streets-lead-to-3m.3637084.jp

"However, the number of successful claims for road and pavement
defects has fallen in recent years as the council has adopted a
tougher stance and is now contesting the majority of claims."

Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Have you seen the huge holes along Princes Street? I thought I would not
come out of the one by St John's church - in the bus lane.

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:08 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

No idea about that council, but in Edinburgh the council claim they
are contesting more claims.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Hazardous-streets-lead-to-3m.3637084.jp

Quoted message said:

"However, the number of successful claims for road and pavement
defects has fallen in recent years as the council has adopted a
tougher stance and is now contesting the majority of claims."

Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.

Council tax payers do - a group which includes me.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.

Martin Dann said:

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cycli
st%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartCommen
ts>

Quoted message said:

No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
paid for their bad advice.

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

If, by fighting a few claims, a larger number of claims can be
prevented, then the cost may well be of long term benefit to local tax
payers.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:03:50 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No idea about that council, but in Edinburgh the council claim they
are contesting more claims.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Hazardous-streets-lead-to-3m.3637084.jp

Quoted message said:

"However, the number of successful claims for road and pavement
defects has fallen in recent years as the council has adopted a
tougher stance and is now contesting the majority of claims."

Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.

Council tax payers do

Debatable. While a free for all would not be to the benefit of
council tax payers, I suspect that a policy of contesting the
majority of all claims is at least equally expensive for council tax
payers.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:03:16 -0000 someone who may be "Geoff Pearson"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Have you seen the huge holes along Princes Street? I thought I would not
come out of the one by St John's church - in the bus lane.

Bus lanes in Edinburgh are particularly bad, demonstrating that
intensive bus services can only be operated in the long term if
roads are expensively reconstructed to allow for the effects they
impose on normally constructed roads.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Martin Dann said:

David Hansen wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cyclist%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
paid for their bad advice.

Quoted message said:

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

Councils have to have policies on this sort of issue (because they are
almost all delegated to officers). And of course, it isn't only
cyclists who make such claims.

One policy could be: "We will pay any claim allegedly arising out of
poor street maintenance immediately and without question".

Another might be: "We will treat claims allegedly arising out of poor
street maintenance very sceptically and will defend any action brought
against us".

Of those two, which is likely be the more expensive for the council
and its taxpayers? I'd want my local council to follow the other one.

Ekul Namsob said:

Martin Dann said:

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cycli
st%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartCommen
ts>

Quoted message said:

No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
paid for their bad advice.

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

If, by fighting a few claims, a larger number of claims can be
prevented, then the cost may well be of long term benefit to local tax
payers.

And that is the policy followed (quite properly and justifiably) by
some councils.

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cyclist%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
"A judge has criticised a council for spending hundreds of pounds
fighting a £90 compensation claim made by a cyclist.

"Andy Hillier, 30, was riding to work when his rear wheel was
wrecked as he hit a pothole in Uxbridge Road. The journalist had to
push his £500 Marin bike back home before travelling to work by Tube
after the accident in June.

If the report is right, and it was Ealing, the council's cycling
officers had nothing to do with the decision to contest the claim. The
case is news to me.

There is a persistent pothole problem on parts of Uxbridge Road.
Bendibuses are heavy and have exacerbated it.

Colin McKenzie
(Not in any way writing on behalf of Ealing Council.)

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:03:50 +0000 someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No idea about that council, but in Edinburgh the council claim they
are contesting more claims.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Hazardous-streets-lead-to-3m.3637084.jp

Quoted message said:

"However, the number of successful claims for road and pavement
defects has fallen in recent years as the council has adopted a
tougher stance and is now contesting the majority of claims."

Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.

Council tax payers do

Debatable. While a free for all would not be to the benefit of
council tax payers, I suspect that a policy of contesting the
majority of all claims is at least equally expensive for council tax
payers.

If a council has a reputation of being a soft touch and paying claims
uncontested, they are more likely to get claims from people trying it on.

If a council has a reputation of playing hard ball and contesting all
claims, they are more likely to scare of a number of claims before they
even occur as well as not having to pay out on all the ones that do get
through.

There will be a point where it is cheaper to do the latter despite the cost.

Also the cost of paying out claims will come from one budget pot and the
cost of the legal staff will come out of another. In the reporting it
probably looks better if you are not paying out so many claims and the
legal costs can be hidden amongst other staff costs.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

If you're happy and you know it, clunk your chains.

On 4 Jan, 19:03, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cycli...
No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
paid for their bad advice.

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

Councils have to have policies on this sort of issue (because they are
almost all delegated to officers). And of course, it isn't only
cyclists who make such claims.

One policy could be: "We will pay any claim allegedly arising out of
poor street maintenance immediately and without question".

Another might be: "We will treat claims allegedly arising out of poor
street maintenance very sceptically and will defend any action brought
against us".

Of those two, which is likely be the more expensive for the council
and its taxpayers? I'd want my local council to follow the other one.

"Any action?" Isn't there a third choice? Wouldn't you want them to
pay the ones that appear justified and fight the others? Or do you
think that no claim can ever be justified? What if your vehicle were
damaged? Would you want them to fight you in order to save the council
tax that cyclists have paid towards road upkeep?

Simon Brooke said:

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:40:08 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

Quoted message said:

No idea about that council, but in Edinburgh the council claim they
are contesting more claims.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Hazardous-streets-lead-t...

Quoted message said:

"However, the number of successful claims for road and pavement
defects has fallen in recent years as the council has adopted a
tougher stance and is now contesting the majority of claims."

Quoted message said:

Who benefits from such a stance is debatable. No doubt lawyers
benefit, but I doubt if anyone else does.

Council tax payers do - a group which includes me.

Who pays council tax (and other taxes) towards road upkeep?
Cyclists and motorists.

Who suffers more from poor road surfaces?
Cyclists, not motorists.

Who destroys road surfaces?
Motorists, not cyclists.

So who benefits most from discouraging claims?

On 4 Jan, 17:24, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

David Hansen said:

That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cycli
st%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartCommen
ts>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
paid for their bad advice.

Quoted message said:

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

If, by fighting a few claims, a larger number of claims can be
prevented, then the cost may well be of long term benefit to local tax
payers.

So the justice or otherwise of these claims does not matter to you?

Obviously it would be of long term benefit to local tax payers to
steadily decrease road maintenance and save the money then?

I suppose that you have really good tyres.

Squashme said:

On 4 Jan, 17:24, [email hidden] (Ekul Namsob)

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

David Hansen wrote:
> That is the title given by a local paper in London to a case where a
> cyclist did not give up in a claim regarding a pothole.

Quoted message said:

>

<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23430720-details/Cycli

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

st%20leaves%20council%20in%20a%20hole/article.do?expand=true#StartCommen

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ts>

Quoted message said:

> No-doubt the council's presumably expensive solicitors have been
> paid for their bad advice.

Quoted message said:

What is truly outrageous about this is that it is the local tax payer
who has to pay for the legal expenses etc.
Many private companies faced with a compensation claim of 90ukp would
realise it is cheaper just to pay the claim, rather than spend several
hundred pounds on solicitors.

If, by fighting a few claims, a larger number of claims can be
prevented, then the cost may well be of long term benefit to local tax
payers.

So the justice or otherwise of these claims does not matter to you?

Don't be silly. If an idiot rides into a pothole and bends his wheel,
precisely who is to blame?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

Squashme said:

So the justice or otherwise of these claims does not matter to you?

Since when has justice been a concern for a bean counter?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Hackers make toys. Crackers break them. (Peter Seebach)