Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Taxpayers ‘losers’ as Fife Council pothole dispute sees authority pay double

Consumer rights campaigner Scott Dixon
Scott Dixon. Image: Kenny Smith/DC Thomson.

Fife Council paid double the cost of a pothole compensation claim fighting it in court.

Consumer rights campaigner Scott Dixon says local taxpayers were the losers after the authority spent £1,835 on legal fees.

The claim had been for £890 of vehicle damage.

“There are no winners in this case.

“Fife Council taxpayers are the losers and may wonder why this had to go to court, given the sheer amount of money wasted in dealing with it.”

Freedom of Information challenge

The council only revealed the figure after two Freedom of Information requests made by The Courier.

At first, the council rejected our request.

But The Courier challenged this on the grounds the council’s information request team had quoted the wrong legislation in their response.

Council solicitor Ewen Robertson said: “The council was incorrect to process your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulation 2004 and your request should have been processed under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.”

Initially, we were told the sum spent fighting the pothole claim could not be disclosed because of commercial confidentiality.

However, after we challenged them, the service was “happy to disclose” the amount.

Campaigner still not convinced about the maths

The £1,835 total for defending the claim in court was a smaller sum than anticipated.

Scott had predicted the cost of the legal wrangle would “easily exceed £10,000.”

And he still suspects the claim “will have cost much more than this”.

The offending pothole in Pittencrieff Street
The offending pothole in Pittencrieff Street, which has been patched a number of times. Image: Google

The pothole in question was at a junction in Dunfermline’s Pittencrieff Street.

A local mum drove into the crater in February 2020 and tried to chase the council for the cost of the damage to her vehicle.

Scott helped fight her case, which the council eventually won.

And the wrangle was so protracted he later said it had put him off fighting for pothole compensation for life.

“Fife Council wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money disputing a pothole claim for £890.

“There is never enough money to repair potholes to the correct specification and criteria, yet there is a bottomless pit of money to dispute any claims that go to court.”

Council response

Clare Whyte is risk management team leader at Fife Council.

She says the council pays out compensation where a claimant can demonstrate the authority “has been negligent or breached a statutory duty”.

“While we always try to reach agreement with claimants, this isn’t always possible, and some will choose to ask the court to decide.

“Where this happens, we’ll always follow legal advice and defend the case if there’s no evidence that we’re legally liable to pay compensation.”

Conversation