In the first answer you refer to a total of 4,568 claims received of which 3,072 were settled. By ‘settled,’ do you mean that the DCC paid the claim in whole, or in part, or do you mean the claim was initially rejected by the DCC and ultimately abandoned by the claimant without resolution?
Settled in whole or in part.
After citing 4,568 claims, you the refer to another figure of 6,239 claims. Which is the correct figure?
6,239 was the number of pothole related claims which came through to the Insurance Section from 2009 to 2019. 4,568 is the figure provided by Highways and represents claims received by them from 2011 to 2019. A higher number of claims would have gone to Highways but because their records only go back as far as 2011 their figure is lower..
Given the implications in public expenditure terms where litigation is unsuccessfully, defended by the DCC, why is there no immediately accessible record kept of this information?
Details of successful and unsuccessful claims are easily accessible. Our claims system did not previously distinguish between litigated and non litigated claims hence why we would need to examine each claim to decipher whether this was the case.
Why is no record kept of ‘repeat repairs’ i.e repairs in the same position as previous repairs, given the implications such ‘repeat repairs’ have in terms of public expenditure generally and the efficiency of the DCC’s road repairs programme in particular
Records can show defects in a similar place on the road however the method of recording by members of the public by simply placing a dot where they believe the defect is does not provide detailed accuracy. Inspections undertaken by DCC or the contractor utilises GPS but again there are limitations in the minute accuracy of this process.
Between January 1st 2002 and February 1st 2020, how many individual repairs have been carried out, and on what dates, on Withy Lane between Whitehall Cross and the junction of Withy Lane and Coombe Hill?
We do not hold information from 2002 -2007, our records go back to 2008.
We do not hold the number of individual repairs, however, repair reports for the date range specified can be viewed via the link below:
Whitehall Cross – Park Cross Hemyock Defects
The whole length of Withy Lane from Whitehall Cross to junction with Coombe Lane was surface dressed in 2014/15, the scheme number 283002 work was completed on 09/05/2014.
The road between Withy Lane and Whitehall Cross and Culmstock was subject to patching works in 2013/14. We do not hold information about this road being surface dressed.
Please re-check your records in relation to your statement that ‘the entire length of Withy Lane was surface dressed in 2014/15.’ In fact, the stretch of Withy Lane that was re-dressed was between Whitehall Cross and Culmstock. The stretch between Whitehall Cross and the junction of Withy Lane was not touched.
Please see the response to the previous question.