Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In fear of keeping this on topic - surely the police who attended the scene will be able to vouch / act as witnesses for the pothole being there?

Hope you get the compensation.

Hopefully it'll persuade the council to repair other holes, preferably before they injure more people.


And +1 to Northernpup's post being idiotic.

I really don't understand why people bother posting such bile.

TimMac,


Firstly can I just say how sorry I am about your accident/injuries. As a regular cyclist who has suffered injury at the hands of negligent car drivers you have my sympathy and I wish you a swift recovery.


Whilst Southwark's speedy reparation of the hole has to be a good thing, ironically this makes your gathering of evidence that bit more difficult. However, I would still take a photo - it is usually relatively easily to tell if a pot-hole has only recently been filled in. Your photo could still constitute good evidence. Incidentally, I note you state the hole was large: this is relevant as it would have to have been of a miminum size in order for you to pursue a claim.


Under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980, Southwark Council are under a duty to ensure its highways are maintained in a manner so as to ensure that they are not dangerous to traffic. (Note: bicycles are classed as traffic for the purposes of the Act). On the face of it it looks as though Southwark may be in breach of their duty of care to maintain that particular junction as required under Section 58. However, Southwark's Highways Department may be able to avoid liability on the grounds that they did not have constructive knowledge of the hole - especially if they can show that they have undertaken regular inspections of that area in accordance with current legal requirements. You should bear this in mind.


I fully understand why you should wish to pursue a claim for your dental costs. However, be aware that most personal injury claims can take years and can be very stressful in themselves - not to mention costly. Around 5 years ago I was knocked off my bike by a lady doing the school run who, without warning, hurriedly cut across me in Lordship Lane to do a sharp left turn. I sustained a fractured hip, but nothing else (even the bike was fine!). There were witnesses and she admitted liability, but I chose not to sue as I was able to receive all of my treatment (mostly physio) on the NHS and, frankly, my priority was to recover and get back to normal in the shortest possiblest time. But your situation is different. By the sound of it, your injuries are pretty severe and the costs involved to put you right hardly chicken feed.


I know this will not help you in your current position, but may I suggest you join the London Cycling Campaign. One of the benefits of membership is free legal advice and third party insurance.


I wish you all the best.

I saw the aftermath of your accident and my heart went out to you. Really glad that you are on the mend and wish you a speedy recovery.


My boyfriend cycles that route every day. I checked with him whether he remembers the pothole but unfortunately he doesn't.


Just to add a few things to what has already been said.


I'm a cyclist too (although not at the mo, as I'm 8 months pregnant!). I was knocked off my bike in a hit and run a few years ago, resulting in a relatively serious injury to my knee . After I made a huge fuss, the driver was eventually criminally prosecuted. I also civilly sued the driver to help pay for my physio etc.


It was a lengthy and emotionally draining process.


It's good that you are making your own enquiries. However, your solicitor should be able to do some of the leg work e.g.getting a log of any complaints made about that section of road or getting Southwark to confirm what work was undertaken and when.


If you have household insurance, you should check whether it covers you for legal claims (mine did). The only disadvantage of this is you have to use the solicitors recommended by your insurer rather than a solicitor of your choice.


Are there any CCTV cameras around there? They might show the the accident, the pothole itself or the pothole being filled. NB CCTV is usually destroyed after 28 days so you will need to write to the owner of the camera asking them to preserve the relevant footage asap.

theratprincess,


Many thanks for your post, were you caught up in the traffic jam which I caused? I have no recollectionhow long I was in the road but it must have been a nnumber of minutes before the police arrived at the scene.


Thank you for the tips. I have already been in touch with my house insurers, I only found out about their service when re-reading the small print. I'll also have a look to see if there were any CCTV cameras in the area which might have captured the incident.


Lady Muck,


Thanks for your post and reference to your experiences, I don't imagine it to be an easy process and although I would rather forget the experience I can't afford to spend what seems to be an escalating dental bill running in to ?3k so will pursue the matter through the lawyers.


Thanks also to everyone else for there supportive messages, Stitches come out today.


Tim

Thinking laterally, if the pothole was repaired recently, then there should be a record of this at LB Southwark (or if an A road TFL?). A freedom of Information request should therefore be able to pin down when the repair was made and would de facto show the pothole had existed at the time you had your accident.

Good thinking but I fear that because the hole which caused the damage was part of a badly filled recent road works, it was quickly filled by the works contractor after the accident. It's worth a shot though.


Many thanks for the lateral thinking.


Tim

Having just revisited the scene I have seen that there is a traffic CCTV camera right at the junction of Nigel Road and Peckham Rye, Although it's unlikely it recorded my accident I would like to find out how I can review the tape. Can anyone shed any light on how I might go about it?


Thanks


Tim

TimMac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think I've managed to answer my own question.

> I've found that Southwark.gov website gives

> details how to go about it.

>

> Tim


Good Luck TimMac...I do hope the incident is on there...it would make your claim so much easier.


*crosses fingers for TimMac*

Hit a massive one my self about half an hour ago, fortunately was in car, not on bike, but If I had been riding Id have been a gonner for sure. There's literally hundreds of them about at the mo, I wouldn't like to be the beancounter at Southwark council who has to arrange funds to get them all filled in.


Seriously though, they are a danger.. perhaps the venerable Mr Barber has some thoughts on this?


Was musing over the reasons for their appearance, obviously its something to do with the snow and cold weather but anybody got any idea of exactly why they have appeared?

Extended period of freezing and wet snow combined to let a lot of water in, which freezes.


As has been said umpteen times they're being filled in, I see crews every day working on them and I'm sure they're working through them as fast as they can although I'm sure the councillor has a schedule.

Apparently, the works to realign the kerb line and traffic island and changes to loading bay and motorbike parking will start from today.

So presume those trenches to get electrics to where the new realigned islands will be.


Normally any road surfaces get fully fixed after such works completed.

Let's not confuse the issue here. The pothole that Tim hit was due to roadworks not the bad weather potholes which are appearing, getting filled then appearing again all over London.


Can I urge anyone who has encountered a dangerous pothole to report it here!

It takes about 5 minutes and pretty much all the ones I have reported have been filled in one way or another within a few days.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...