The Risk of Pavement Parking- When local authorities fail to enforce restrictions on motor vehicles parking on pavements—surfaces not designed to bear vehicle weight—they are more likely to be held liable in cases where pedestrians trip and fall due to pavement defects.
Allowing pavement parking can undermine the adequacy of a highway authority’s inspections. Local authority inspectors often lack the time to check beneath parked cars, leading to missed damage.
The Issue with Wet Inspections
Similar concerns arise when highway inspections take place during wet weather. Water-filled potholes can resemble harmless puddles, disguising the true extent of the hazard. After the wettest September on record in 2024, I question whether highway authorities adjusted their inspection methods or delayed inspections due to standing water or flooding. Failing to account for such conditions can compromise the accuracy and adequacy of inspections.
The Legal Implications- my experience
When persuing compensation for injury or damage caused by highway defects, the Claimant must first prove the defect was dangerous. Once established, the burden shifts to the local authority to demonstrate they had a reasonable inspection, maintenance and repair policy in place—and that they adhered to it. However, how can they reasonably prove this if defects are hidden beneath parked cars or under standing water?
I have won a case when I challenged the adequacy of inspections when there was a motor vehicle parked on the pavement virtually all the time. This state of affairs was supported by images on Google Streetview and evidence from local witnesses of cars being frequently parked on the pavement at the accident location. On the day of my client’s accident there was no car on the pavement but there were significant defects, one of which caused my client to trip and fall.
Inconsistency in Highway Policies
Local authority highway policies vary significantly, despite being based on the same national guidance—the Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure Policy (WMHIP). There is no universal standard intervention level for repairs; a recent Freedom of Information request which we carried out revealed intervention levels ranging from 20-80mm. The WMHIP encourages a risk-based approach, suggesting heightened inspection and lower intervention thresholds for areas frequented by vulnerable groups, such as care homes or areas with higher foot traffic from elderly people or those with mobility issues.
The Need for Competent Inspections
Ultimately, inspections must be thorough and reliable. In my opinion, inspections conducted when defects are concealed by parked vehicles or obscured by water cannot be deemed adequate. Local authorities must reconsider their approach to ensure inspections genuinely reflect public safety risks and meet their duty of care or they risk a finding of negligence against them and compensation payments for the injury and damage caused.
