A council in the East Midlands has committed to reviewing how it maintains the area’s cycleways, after forking out £36 for puncture repairs – over eleven months after a local cyclist complained that a bike path littered with hedge cuttings and
debris caused three punctures in one ride for two Ukrainian guests staying at his home.

Rutland County Council initially refused to clear the hazardous bike path, claiming that it was the responsibility of the owner of the adjacent field, prompting the cyclists to sweep the path clear themselves.

After months of correspondence between the cyclist and the local authority, including threats of legal action, the council eventually agreed to settle the claim, through its insurers, almost a year later, while promising to review how it responds to
reports of debris on cycleways. However, the council has continued to deny liability for the punctures.

David Nicholson first contacted Rutland County Council in September last year, after two Ukrainian guests staying at his home suffered three punctures, caused by hedge cuttings on a bike path located next to the busy Ryhall Road. The pair were then
forced to walk their bikes into Stamford for repairs.

“I offered to cover the cost, but they are the most considerate people I have ever met and would not take a penny,” Mr Nicholson told the Rutland and Stamford Mercury (link is external).

“Anxious to avoid a repeat, or to force them to cycle on a busy road, I rang the council and asked it to clear the cycle way. To my amazement, it refused, saying that it was the responsibility of the landowner.”

While the cyclists decided to sweep the cycle path clear themselves, Mr Nicholson contacted the council’s highways department, arguing that compensation should be granted to cover the costs of the new tubes.

“A cycleway is part of a highway and, as with spills on a road, the council has a responsibility to keep it clear,” he said.

After initially being sent an incorrect form, Mr Nicholson eventually submitted a receipt for the £36 worth of puncture repairs to the council.

“Rather than accept responsibility, and settle the relatively tiny sum, it referred the claim to Zurich, its insurers,” he noted.

“Firstly, Zurich Insurance denied liability on the basis that the responsibility for clearing up lay with the person who cut the hedge. That may be so, but it does not absolve the council from responsibility for ensuring that it is cleared, just as
would happen in the event of a lorry spillage.”

After eight months of silence from the council – during which Mr Nicholson threatened to take the matter to the smalls claims court – in August he sent a final letter preceding court action, demanding a reply within 14 days.

“At last, on the final day, it agreed to settle the claim,” he said.

“I'm surprised that Rutland didn't just settle out of its petty cash. I would not have persevered for my own sake, but our guests do need the money and would not accept charity beyond our help overcoming the Government’s Homes for Ukraine visa
hurdles and somewhere to live for nine months.”

However, earlier this month, a few weeks after Mr Nicholson’s claim was finally settled, another local posted on social media an image of another nearby cycle path – located beside the Stamford Road in Oakham – littered with hedge cuttings.

A council spokesperson told the local newspaper that the delay in dealing with Mr Nicholson’s claim owed to its “robust” insurance processes, established to protect from fraud, while claiming that it is currently reviewing how it deals with claims
of debris-littered cycleways, such as the one above,

“They may seem excessive, but are important to protect public money from potentially false claims,” they said.

“In this case, the claim involved a third party acting on behalf of the claimant, which can take longer to resolve. We have also apologised for delays caused by the council sending out an incorrect form.

“In addition, we are reviewing the way we respond to reports of debris on cycleways.”

https://road.cc/content/news/council-pays-puncture-repairs-due-bike-path-debris-303903

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/09/2023 05:37, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

A council in the East Midlands has committed to reviewing how it maintains the area’s cycleways, after forking out £36 for puncture repairs – over eleven months after a local cyclist complained that a bike path littered with hedge cuttings and

debris caused three punctures in one ride for two Ukrainian guests staying at his home.

Rutland County Council initially refused to clear the hazardous bike path, claiming that it was the responsibility of the owner of the adjacent field, prompting the cyclists to sweep the path clear themselves.

After months of correspondence between the cyclist and the local authority, including threats of legal action, the council eventually agreed to settle the claim, through its insurers, almost a year later, while promising to review how it responds to

reports of debris on cycleways. However, the council has continued to deny liability for the punctures.

David Nicholson first contacted Rutland County Council in September last year, after two Ukrainian guests staying at his home suffered three punctures, caused by hedge cuttings on a bike path located next to the busy Ryhall Road. The pair were then

forced to walk their bikes into Stamford for repairs.

“I offered to cover the cost, but they are the most considerate people I have ever met and would not take a penny,” Mr Nicholson told the Rutland and Stamford Mercury (link is external).

“Anxious to avoid a repeat, or to force them to cycle on a busy road, I rang the council and asked it to clear the cycle way. To my amazement, it refused, saying that it was the responsibility of the landowner.”

While the cyclists decided to sweep the cycle path clear themselves, Mr Nicholson contacted the council’s highways department, arguing that compensation should be granted to cover the costs of the new tubes.

“A cycleway is part of a highway and, as with spills on a road, the council has a responsibility to keep it clear,” he said.

After initially being sent an incorrect form, Mr Nicholson eventually submitted a receipt for the £36 worth of puncture repairs to the council.

“Rather than accept responsibility, and settle the relatively tiny sum, it referred the claim to Zurich, its insurers,” he noted.

“Firstly, Zurich Insurance denied liability on the basis that the responsibility for clearing up lay with the person who cut the hedge. That may be so, but it does not absolve the council from responsibility for ensuring that it is cleared, just as

would happen in the event of a lorry spillage.”

After eight months of silence from the council – during which Mr Nicholson threatened to take the matter to the smalls claims court – in August he sent a final letter preceding court action, demanding a reply within 14 days.

“At last, on the final day, it agreed to settle the claim,” he said.

“I'm surprised that Rutland didn't just settle out of its petty cash. I would not have persevered for my own sake, but our guests do need the money and would not accept charity beyond our help overcoming the Government’s Homes for Ukraine visa

hurdles and somewhere to live for nine months.”

However, earlier this month, a few weeks after Mr Nicholson’s claim was finally settled, another local posted on social media an image of another nearby cycle path – located beside the Stamford Road in Oakham – littered with hedge cuttings.

A council spokesperson told the local newspaper that the delay in dealing with Mr Nicholson’s claim owed to its “robust” insurance processes, established to protect from fraud, while claiming that it is currently reviewing how it deals with

claims of debris-littered cycleways, such as the one above,

“They may seem excessive, but are important to protect public money from potentially false claims,” they said.

“In this case, the claim involved a third party acting on behalf of the claimant, which can take longer to resolve. We have also apologised for delays caused by the council sending out an incorrect form.

“In addition, we are reviewing the way we respond to reports of debris on cycleways.”

https://road.cc/content/news/council-pays-puncture-repairs-due-bike-path-debris-303903

Thirty-six whole British pounds?

Is the council going to have to raise a supplementary rate to cover the
costs?

It's nearly as much an average councillor claims in expenses per diem.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

VIPcyclist | 125 posts | 3 days ago
3 likes

Here's my take on it. The debris on the road, if they are cuttings and not leaves that have blown, constitute an act of fly-tipping. It is the responsibility of the land owner on which the fly-tipping has occurred to clean it up. Even if it's wind blown
debris the cycle-way should be kept in a safe condition ; I know no road in our banana kingdom are in a safe condition. Given this the council should clear the debris and if it's cuttings on the cycle-way charge the landowner who has left them for doing
so.

This leaves a slight problem though the landowner might just leave the hedges etc to grow onto the road. Then the council would have to cut and dispose of the waste ; much like I have to cut my neighbours trees, at the boundary, when they encroach onto
my property. In that case I'm responsible for removing the waste.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)