A frustrated driver who was forced to pay £260 after bursting two tyres in a pothole has slammed the county council for the way it “treats its citizens” – after they refused to pay compensation.

Chalfont St Peter resident Debbie Walker’s car was damaged when she drove into a large pothole on Gold Hill in the village on December 17.

Two of her tyres popped – and she was forced to take it to a nearby garage and pay £259.20 to replace them.

She immediately reported the pothole online and by calling the Transport for Bucks emergency number because it was “clearly a dangerous location and pothole” – and it was repaired later that evening.

After putting in a claim for compensation, last week Mrs Walker was told the council would not pay up – quoting what she called “legalistic nonsense designed to shut down any claim and any grounds for challenging the decisions.”

She said: “The council’s argument appears to be based on the spurious grounds that a) the road in question was inspected in November 2019 and was deemed to have no defects, b) the pothole in question was reported on December 14 and the council has a 10 working day window for a response.

“These together mean the council are absolved therefore of any responsibility whatsoever for damages to vehicles.

“This is absolute madness. And more importantly this simply goes to illustrate further the high-handed way in which Bucks CC treats its council tax paying citizens.

“This council does not care about the safety of its road users.”

When approached by the Bucks Free Press, a spokesman for Transport for Bucks said they could not comment on individual cases.

But in a letter sent to Mrs Walker, Richard Ambrose, director of finance and procurement said: “The council has a reasonable system of safety inspections and maintenance for this road and is therefore able to establish a complete defence under section 58 of the Highways Act.

“In this respect, we must inform you that the council is not liable for the cost of the damage to your property.

“We are sorry that you have had cause to seek compensation. You may not agree with our decision to reject your claim, but this does not mean that it will be changed if challenged.”