Anyone Had Success Claiming Tyre Damage from NSW Due to Pot Holes?

• 

  CrowReally on 01/08/2023 - 12:34

  +9

  I feel like the answer is the first paragraph on the second link you supplied, but you've obviously read that so uh

  • 

    newjerseydamo on 01/08/2023 - 12:58

    -1

    ^

• 

  jv on 01/08/2023 - 12:36

  Nope

• 

  Fredfloresjr on 01/08/2023 - 12:40

  +8

  Not a chance buddy. Have you been to paramatta road along Auburn/Lidcombe? Lol.

  • 

    Hydralyte on 01/08/2023 - 18:41

    +1

    Lebos in their utes and dodge rams and trucks

• 

  Jimothy Wongingtons on 01/08/2023 - 12:41

  +5

  if you win they can make a movie about it , similar to the australian masterpiece that is 'The Castle'.

• 

  Seraphin7 on 01/08/2023 - 12:43

  +8

  Here's what's going to happen. The government will spend an absolutely ridiculous amount of taxpayers' money to ensure you are denied your claim … because if they even come close to admitting liability for failing to maintain roads to an adequate standard (which, let's face it, there are any number of examples in our respective localities where they don't) the ongoing compensation bill will be enormous.

• 

  Shadowsfury on 01/08/2023 - 12:50

  +4

  You'd probably have to prove negligence to get anywhere (i.e. they knew about the specific pothole and didn't do anything about it)

• 

  lordra on 01/08/2023 - 13:05

  +1

  OP, you've said NSW State Govt. That is too vague.
  Do you mean Transport for NSW?
  Did you lodge a public liability claim with TFNSW here?
  What were their exact words?

  I've referred a couple of people here, but haven't followed up on the outcome.

  • 

    shertiger on 01/08/2023 - 13:18

    The email came from Gallagher Bassett. They apparently act as the claims administrator for Insurance for NSW, which provides cover for Transport for NSW (TfNSW).

    • 

      Euphemistic on 01/08/2023 - 13:24

      Assume it was on a state controlled road?

      • 

        shertiger on 01/08/2023 - 13:35

        Yep

        • 

          lordra on 01/08/2023 - 22:27

          @shertiger: Wow, so they said that they didn't know about it and therefore was not covered?

• 

  Drakesy on 01/08/2023 - 13:05

  +6

  Yeah nah, trying to prove negligence is nigh on impossible with these matters.

  The only way you would be able to do it is report it.
  Then a week later when it's still there drive into it.

  But then the judge might just throw it out because you already knew about the hazard.

  • 

    Euphemistic on 01/08/2023 - 13:25

    +1

    A judge would absolutely throw it out. You’d need to get someone else not related to report before you report the issue.

    • 

      orangetrain on 01/08/2023 - 14:16

      You would also need that someone else to somehow be unaware of the issue and at same time be aware that it was a reported issue. Catch 22.

      • 

        Euphemistic on 01/08/2023 - 15:32

        Potentially you could get person X to report, run on a spare tyre for a few weeks but then claim before it’s fixed at after a ‘reasonable’ amount of time.

• 

  Euphemistic on 01/08/2023 - 13:23

  +1

  There’s precedent with this. The appropriate government authority can only be held to account if they knew about the issue and did not respond within a reasonable amount of time.

  For example on a main road controlled by the state authority, they inspect regularly and have different response time for certain size of pothole. Minor might be a couple of days to a week, large might be next business day, major might be immediate.

  A council will not inspect all roads regularly and relies on the public to notify of issues. They’ll have crews out all the time roving for issues but they’ll also have a list of potholes to repair and will work to areas. In the event of notification of a serious hole an inspector (supervisor etc) will check the pothole and determine how quickly they need to get it done based on size, location, severity - also according to their procedures. It may take up to 6 weeks to get a minor hole patched.

• 

  GordonD on 01/08/2023 - 13:25

  +2

  A roads authority is not liable in proceedings for civil liability to which this Part applies for harm arising from a failure of the authority to carry out road work, or to consider carrying out road work, unless at the time of the alleged failure the authority had actual knowledge of the particular risk the materialisation of which resulted in the harm.

  I tried to use this to get compensation from the NT government. The basis on which I thought I was entitled to compensation was not that there was a pothole, they aren't liable if they don't know about it. It was a pothole that they had actual knowledge of, as evidenced by the fact they had painted a white circle around it for the repair crew, but had not put up any signage to drivers warning them, and that it was just around a corner that prevented drivers being able to see it before they hit it.

  It was on the main highway south, which at the time had no speed limit, and came around a corner at 140 and hit a pothole in the road that was just big enough for a tyre to drop into it, meaning the alloy wheel rim hit the hard bitumen on each side and was destroyed.

  Of course I got nothing.

  • 

    Euphemistic on 01/08/2023 - 13:27

    -3

    Their repair may well have been in a normal response time but you hit it between reporting and fixing. It’s also entirely plausible that the hole had worsened since it was marked.

    They also rely on you being responsible to drive to conditions. If you are driving so fast you can’t see a pothole coming up perhaps you shouldn’t be driving that fast.

    • 

      GordonD on 01/08/2023 - 13:35

      +1

      Yeah, I didn't try very hard to get compensation, because I didn't consider myself a totally innocent victim. I really just wanted to make the point to them that if they have actual knowledge of a road hazard, they have a responsibility to warn drivers.

• 

  JimmyF on 01/08/2023 - 13:34

  +1

  Anyone actually successfully got compensation or is this a dead end?

  Generally for the council, you'll only 'win' if they had been made aware of the issue and it wasn't repaired within their defined KPIs for repairs.

  Basically they can't be held for something they didn't know about or have had a chance to repair.

  Bit like people who trip on foot paths etc, same rules apply.

• 

  pharkurnell on 01/08/2023 - 14:04

  Interesting in Mornington vic

  When is the Shire not liable for injury, loss or damage?

  • The Shire has a range of statutory defences available in relation to common claims. They are:
  o Natural Events – where injury, loss or damage is caused by natural events beyond its control such as bushfires, floods and storms.
  o Tree Root Claims – the Shire will not be liable for root damage to property if it was not previously aware of the problem.
  o Trips, Slips and Falls where there is an obvious risk – pedestrians must take care to avoid hazards and imperfections on pathways where the risk is obvious.
  o Damage to land which is not the Shire’s responsibility to maintain – such as crossovers and certain sections of road reserve.
  o
  o
  Third Party fault – where the injury loss or damage was caused by a third party such as a utility company, contractor or other statutory authority.
  Road Management Act 2004 (Vic) – the Act provides that local councils are not liable for the first $1,580 of damage caused by the conditions of roads or road infrastructure.

  so only Mercedes and BMW rims…

  • 

    emblurr on 01/08/2023 - 14:44

    Yeah i thought about trying for a claim after a pothole damaged my rim and broke my PS4 tyre. Cost me $600 to fix and replace. Realised it was going to be pointless trying to make a claim

    • 

      pharkurnell on 01/08/2023 - 15:15

      I've bent 4 rims over time on th shit roads around Melb.. 200 per rim to get fixed.

• 

  Gdsamp on 01/08/2023 - 15:08

  do australian councils/main roads authorities respond more promptly to address such pot holes if, for example, the surrounding road was adorned with offensive graffiti or similar?

  • 

    pharkurnell on 01/08/2023 - 15:15

    +1

    no

    • 

      Euphemistic on 01/08/2023 - 15:33

      Maybe.

• 

  imnotgoingtopayrrp on 01/08/2023 - 20:21

  Yep, i did. Well, kind of. My local council knowingly used contaminated builder fill as a road base about 15 years ago in my street. They offered free tyres and puncture repairs for the people in the street until they re-did the road with clean road base. It was such a stupid mistake. I was one of the lucky ones where it was just nails and screws in the road. Some other areas had detectable bonded asbestos fragments through their road base. It was an interesting time. My local council is no longer functioning, and has been in administration for at least 5 years now (I think).

  • 

    lordra on 01/08/2023 - 22:24

    Oh gawd, you're in Sydney. Can you name and shame?

• 

  Bing0 on 01/08/2023 - 21:24

  Planting trees in potholes has gotten the attention of some councils before, but won't pay for anyone's rims sadly.

• 

  try2bhelpful on 01/08/2023 - 21:50

  We hit a pothole in back blocks Victoria that was so hard our doors opened because it thought we’d had an accident.

• 

  Levils on 02/08/2023 - 09:13

  Worth checking on fix my street (Google that followed by Australia) to see whether anyone has reported that pothole before.

• 

  coffeeinmyveins on 02/08/2023 - 10:23

  I’ve tried to claim from NSW state government but they have denied the claim

  or is this a dead end?

  They've denied the claim, what do you expect to happen? Move on with your life, and maybe leave a big enough gap between you and the car infront so you can see hazards on the road.

  TBH whilst potholes are frustrating and should be fixed asap, you as a road user are responsible for checking hazards ahead on the road.

• 

  resisting the urge on 02/08/2023 - 11:19

  +3

  This is becoming more of a problem as modern cars have stupidly thinner tyre profiles (side wall heights) exposing the rims to cracking/bending/shattering, along with catastrophic outcomes when one fails badly.

  Responsible authorities get away with it as cars are getting safer in catastrophic accidents- so only the costs increase (deaths do not, and thus, no change). Same old half-job approach persists unimproved. So often delayed, reactive response is all a community can hope for from Council and State authorities.

  Very dangerous when people have cars with stiff suspension, less travel and less resilience.

  And part of the many causes driving consumers to gas guzzlers.

• 

  WT on 02/08/2023 - 13:25

  tried council and sydney water, they kept playing ping pong