Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Nearholmer
Posts: 3930
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by Nearholmer »

Rather than a belief, here are some auditable facts:

From 2010-2022, the total spending power available to olocal authorities from all income sources (local taxation, central grant etc) fell by 16%.

Over the same period, there was no significant reduction in their statutory obligations, a few minor increases in obligations, and a dawning realisation up to and including central government that there is a yawning gulf between their obligations in respect of adult social care particularly, and their income. There is report after report about the funding mess from all sorts of reputable bodies …… as I say, not a matter of ‘belief’, but a matter of auditable, audited actually, facts.

The ‘redundancy payoffs to senior bods’ thing is a total red herring in the broad picture, the amount of money spent on that is a tiny percentage of total expenditure or income ….. it simply makes good headline fodder for newspapers.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by fastpedaller »

Nearholmer wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 3:14pm Rather than a belief, here are some auditable facts:


The ‘redundancy payoffs to senior bods’ thing is a total red herring in the broad picture, the amount of money spent on that is a tiny percentage of total expenditure or income ….. it simply makes good headline fodder for newspapers.
Sums in excess of 1/4 million pounds have been paid to a few senior people in our local Council - albeit a 'small percentage' it would go a long way on some of the adult service care etc. I don't see any need to pay more (or even attempt to negotiate more at interview) than the statutory redundancy pay which I understand is 1.5 x weekly salary for every year (if employee is over 400 - and it is also capped, so not the 2k some get (note I didn't say earn) every week.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3930
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by Nearholmer »

I don't see any need to pay more (or even attempt to negotiate more at interview)
If the people being made redundant are long-servers, the terms of their contracts will have been arrived at ages ago, based on circumstances as applied then, when the typical situation in the public sector was relatively low salaries, but good redundancy and pension provision.

If they are short-servers, they will have been recruited in the recent market, which has been one of shortage of really sound talent at that sort of level across both public and private sectors, creating salary and terms inflation. If they’d offered only statutory redundancy under those conditions then they’d have had to pay a very inflated salary to get anyone worth having.

It might be exciting to read of big severance payments, but no council would be paying senior bods off if there wasn’t fairly swift payback in terms of savings in salary costs, employers pension contributions etc.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by thirdcrank »

The implication that inadequate provision for road maintenance is something new is mistaken. It may well be that the situation became worse under the Coalition and even worse under subsequent Tory governments but it wasn't all milk and honey before that.

Here's the report of a case dealing with a pothole-related personal injury claim dating from May 2006. which I've linked before

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/207.html

A teenage cyclist was injured and the highway authority (York City Council) dragged its corporate feet for some three years before the case came to court. The deputy district judge made short shrift of the authority's defence - and seems to have shredded the evidence of their witness, the by then retired former director of highways. (A deputy district judge is learned friend sworn in for the purpose - not a full-time judge.)

An appeal heard by a circuit judge reversed the decision so - with the leave of a high court judge - the case was heard in January 2011 by three judges in the Court of Appeal. Allowing the cyclist's appeal, the three Lord Justices (including the Master of the Rolls) concluded that the deputy district judge got it right, but should have shown his working out to achieve full marks.

Megabucks spent on lawyers and associated costs. Possibly better spent on prevention.
Tiggertoo
Posts: 475
Joined: 2 Jun 2021, 4:52pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by Tiggertoo »

fastpedaller wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 2:37pm I'd believe the local government were short of money to fund projects (be they child care, libraries, highways or whatever) if they didn't then make senior staff 'redundant' giving each of them a multiple of some 10x the payout that a private-sector individual would be awarded!
Finally a truism; public sector workers just don't work very much compared with workers in the private sector and are unreasonably rewarded when their desk is needed for some other soon to be layabout feeding out of the public trough.
rmaxted
Posts: 17
Joined: 6 Sep 2022, 9:00pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by rmaxted »

I assume that this is tongue in check. Otherwise its frankly offensive.
cycle tramp
Posts: 3532
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by cycle tramp »

Tiggertoo wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 7:49pm
fastpedaller wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 2:37pm I'd believe the local government were short of money to fund projects (be they child care, libraries, highways or whatever) if they didn't then make senior staff 'redundant' giving each of them a multiple of some 10x the payout that a private-sector individual would be awarded!
Finally a truism; public sector workers just don't work very much compared with workers in the private sector and are unreasonably rewarded when their desk is needed for some other soon to be layabout feeding out of the public trough.
Having worked in both private and public realms I personally didn't notice a difference in the work ethic - indeed stilI believe that a work ethic is a personal thing, I have seen some staff in both sectors working large amounts of unpaid hours in order to get the task done to their satisfaction and equally others who attempt to avoid any work as long as the avoidance goes unnoticed. if you have anything with which to back your statement I invite you to state your case further - otherwise how else would you arrive at your statement? Unless you 'hears it from a guy in the pub?' or read it in the mail or just believe that is so...?
Here's the thing... I tried out for answering calls for children's social services some 6 or 7 years ago. First call I had was 'please can I have some help, I think my son has been abused..' I didn't think that job was for me.. but others are doing that job.. having listen to things that they probably don't want to listen to, but do it because someone has to. There's nothing like that in the private sector - there's no money in it. Still think that they're not working very hard? How about the local homeless team who work to try and rehouse the homeless. Again the private sector won't perform this function. Its a thankless task.. burn out rate for a housing officer is between 2 to 3 years before they give up.... still think they're not working very hard?
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by pete75 »

fastpedaller wrote: 28 Sep 2022, 4:41pm Sums in excess of 1/4 million pounds have been paid to a few senior people in our local Council - albeit a 'small percentage' it would go a long way on some of the adult service care etc. I don't see any need to pay more (or even attempt to negotiate more at interview) than the statutory redundancy pay which I understand is 1.5 x weekly salary for every year (if employee is over 400 - and it is also capped, so not the 2k some get (note I didn't say earn) every week.
Hmm I worked in local governerment and in the private sector. Our local county council got rid of it's chief executive about six years ago. He received £400,000. The private sector company I was employed by at the time also got rid of it's Chief Exec. He walked away with 9 million quid and kept the £200,000+ Ferrari that was his company car.
I was made redundant by the same company two years later - at each of the statutory three interviews before leaving I managed to negotiate a £5,000 increase in payment - so £15,000 extra. Didn't get to keep it - was taxed just over £15,000 on my redundancy payout.

Many people think redundancy payments are tax free but they're not, just the first £30,000. Redundancy terms and conditions are whatever is stated in the employment contract and/or whatever the employer offers when they are after volunteers for redundancy.

If you think a job that pays £100,000 a year in the public sector is such a doddle , why not get yourself one?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by fastpedaller »

I have skills in other areas - doesn't mean I work any less hard, or they work any harder.
Nearholmer
Posts: 3930
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by Nearholmer »

The responses have been to Tiggertoo’s contribution, which is either a piece of dust-dry wit, a display of deep prejudice and woeful ignorance, or deliberate trolling.

It would be good if he or she could clarify which, because when I suffer a sense of humour failure it’s useful to know.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by Psamathe »

I suffered some damage from Highways stupidity several years ago (shoes, not injury). I sought compensation and despite having evidence, somewhat "black and white" Highways refused so I said Small Claims Track Court and they immediately said they'd be sending legal team to defend (despite that even if the case was found in their favour the Small Claims Track means they could never recover their legal costs).

Having subsequently talked to several others seeking damages (non-injury) from Highways, irrespective of the case they always defend, never admit liability, even if their winning would actually cost them money.

All the companies I've worked for/run would always look at any issue on the broad basis of common sense (i.e. if we were wrong we'd admit it and do our best to make good/compensate). I don't know how widespread the "always defend even if we're wrong" is across Highways around the country but I do regard this as a difference from commercial companies.

In my case it was Highways operating standards that allowed the damage to occur NOT the contractor who was following all Highways requirements i.e. it was Highways requirements/practices at fault. Highways tried to get me to pursue the contractor. In the end the contractor contacted me and paid just because they were likely going to be called into my court case by Highways and it was cheaper for them to pay the small amount than waste time in a case that Highways would lose.

Ian
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by mjr »

Psamathe wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 11:32am In the end the contractor contacted me and paid just because they were likely going to be called into my court case by Highways and it was cheaper for them to pay the small amount than waste time in a case that Highways would lose.
That was the outcome of my claim against Norfolk Highways, too... but in that case, the contractor had erred, as well as the council not managing works effectively.

Councils seem to regard every highways claim as worth defending, presumably to deter even more claims. Are there any statistics on highways payouts and legal costs?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by Psamathe »

I also think the issue goes beyond just potholes.

Round me we have lots of surface dressing every year and on the smaller roads the excess chipings are not swept up or inadequately swept-up (I can't certify a sweeper never appeared n a road). End result is often deep piles of chipings along the edges of roads and worse at junctions. So on a bike you pull over to allow a vehicle to pass and suddenly you have no steering or brakes and are riding with little control. You brake pproaching a junction and suddenly you are sliding.

I've not suffered accident from this but have reported dangerous build-up of chippings after surface dressing (as in weeks after, long after warnings signs removed) but Highways never act on the reports.

They are a hazard to cyclists caused by Highways but not rectified by Highways.

Ian
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Potholes - County Councils avoiding responsibility

Post by pete75 »

fastpedaller wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 10:16am I have skills in other areas - doesn't mean I work any less hard, or they work any harder.
But obviously paying less - hence your apparent envy of their salaries.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Post Reply