A HAZLEMERE man whose car was damaged by a pothole has had a claim against a council rejected because transport bosses say they had already noted the pothole needed repair.

Keith Bullock claimed £143.97 in compensation from Buckinghamshire County Council after a tyre on his Citroen Picasso blew after he struck a huge pothole in Amersham Road at about 8pm on February 25.

But the council told him on Friday it had “no liability” for “his unfortunate incident” because the defect had already been noted for repair at 12.59pm earlier that day.

The council went on to say in a letter that the repair could not be completed until 9.41am on February 26 so “the council has a reasonable system of safety inspections and maintenance in existence and is therefore able to establish a complete defence.”

Stunned Mr Bullock said the decision “was ludicrous” and claimed the pothole had not been repaired when the council stated, after he took time-stamped photos of the gaping hole on March 1.

He now plans to fight the ruling and has urged other motorists who have had claims for their vehicles damaged by potholes refused by the council to look again.

He said: “I couldn't believe it, I was fuming when I read that letter – I know times are hard and they are looking for ways to save money but this is ludicrous.

“Of all the potholes in the county, they happened to spot and report that one. Regardless as to whether they noted it, it hadn't been repaired when I hit it, it seems very harsh.

“And to top it off, I have pictures of the pothole dated March 1 and it still hadn't been repaired then, it was about six inches deep.

“I won't be dropping this, I will keep fighting. It is the principle of it and it just makes you wonder whether they have been doing this to everyone else.”

In a statement, the county council said it is liable for claims made against it but only if the council have failed to comply with our inspection and repairs process.

The statement added: “We dealt with this claim, which in our judgement, was not a failure on our part so it was rejected.

“If someone is not happy with our decision and can provide new evidence, we will always be happy to review their claim again.”