Dear Mr Thorpe Thank you for your letter dated 25" August 2010. The content included has been noted and | will endeavour to answer the points raised one by one. ‘As you correctly point out, a member of the public did report, in their words, “several very severe potholes “along Puddock Road. The fact that a member of the public believes that the defect is severe and dangerous does not constitute that it actually is a dangerous defect. Our inspectors will judge what defects are in need of emergency attention and what defects should be repaired within a practical and reasonable timescale. | am sure you can appreciate that following the harsh winter we experienced we were receiving hundreds of calls to notify us of severe, dangerous defects all over the County. Sometimes these could be situated on road that only serves as a through route to one or two addresses. As you can see, it simply is neither reasonable nor practical to action defects to this affect. The well maintained Highways 2005 document or the Code of Practice for Highways Management is not a mandatory document. It is merely a model for authorities to follow when determining their own local policies. As previously stated, we do not follow the requirement to make safe immediately upon inspection or notification of defects. It is not practicable within our limited human and financial resources to do so, The fact that there was a report of several defects being present in the carriageway does not bestow a duty on us to ensure that it is repaired within 24 hours. Our inspectors will investigate such claims and decide what action, if any, needs lo be carried out. If the defect is considered dangerous to road users it will be repaired within 24 hours. Ifit is considered less of a risk then it will be entered into a practical and reasonable work scheme to ensure that all defects are managed and repaired in order of severity. ‘As previously mentioned, we do not comply with the same guidance as Cheshire East Council and any publication relating to their standards is not relevant to your claim. In relation to your claim | am advised that we first received notification that defects were present on the 1% March 2010. I do not believe, considering the sheer volume of calls received during the winter, 9 days is unreasonable to ensure that the carriageway is repaired. The site was visited on 3 March 2010, our inspector did not believe the defect required emergency attention and scheduled repairs to take place within 7 days. As mentioned above, these were completed by 10" March 2010. teres ag Tari CUNERB|sne ad was iD Neon Genin mene (eine macnn en muy) mwwcambtiI have included a copy of our inspection regime for Puddock Road. You will see that the road in question has been inspected every quarter consistently for the best part of § years. | do not think that our inspection regime can be called into dispute on this occasion. ‘As you correctly state, Puddock Road was inspected on 9" December 2009 prior to your incident. As you can see from the inspection regime enclosed it was again inspected on 12th March 2010. By the time the inspection was carried out on 12" March 2010 we had already been notified of the existence of defects and the order had been raised and repairs carried out by 10" March 2010 thus when the carriageway was inspected on the 12" March 2010 there were no defects noted that required emergency attention. Although there are further reports of damage being caused to vehicles after the 10” March 2010 | can confirm that not every person that suffered damage to their vehicle reports the cause the very same day if at all. This sometimes leads to reports of pothole damage being received after the defect in question has been repaired. Rather than stating that that the safely inspection is failing to identify defects | would actually argue that our inspection regime is more than appropriate for the road in question and reasonable action has been taken following notification of any defects. Your comments regarding the present condition of the carriageway have been noted and | have sent a copy of your correspondence to our Area Maintenance Manager for the area in question. It is also accepted that there have been signs erected to warn motorists of an advisory speed limit of 35mph along this stretch of road. | believe that this is a prudent step taken by the Council to warn motorists of potential hazards within the area it does not however absolve them of their responsibility to drive with due car and consideration for all aspects of the prevailing road conditions. if motorists choose to travel at speeds in excess of this then ultimately that is a decision for them having regard of the risks of so doing. ‘After a thorough review of your claim, the evidence available to me and the comments made your letter dated 31° August 2010 | see no reason to over turn the original decision on liability. Whilst we are sorry that you have suffered damage to your vehicle | regret that we cannot make ‘an offer of compensation on this occasion. Yours Sincerely Shivllely— Steve Woolley Insurance Claims Handler ‘Audit and Risk Management