Source
Department for Transport — Local road maintenance ratings 2025 to 2026
amberOverall|amber Conditiongreen Spendamber Best Practice
Durham: 198,000 Pothole Repairs, 95% Claims Refused
Durham County Council earns a GREEN spend scorecard and invests beyond its DfT allocation — yet the overall rating is AMBER because condition and best practice lag behind. The council filled an estimated 198,463 potholes in five years, resurfacing output has halved, and Durham publicly admits its own condition surveys can be flawed on its rural network.
95%
Third-party liability claims repudiated
Durham's own transparency report states a 95% repudiation rate on public liability claims — while still filling 43,044 potholes in 2024/25 alone across a 3,843km network.
What The Condition Data Shows
Five years of SCANNER and CVI survey data from Durham's own transparency report — classified roads broadly stable, unclassified roads still carrying heavy RED load
A-roads (417km — 10.8% of network): stable
2.8%
RED (2024)
down from 3.4% in 2020
20.2%
Amber
broadly flat
77.0%
Green
up from 76.5%
Durham states its classified network is "slightly better than the national average." A-roads are surveyed by SCANNER on a two-year cycle. Credit where due — but A-roads are barely one-tenth of the network.
B and C roads (1,101km — 28.6% of network): mixed
| Year | Red | Amber | Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 2.7% | 20.6% | 72.7% |
| 2021 | 3.4% | 26.1% | 70.5% |
| 2022 | 3.4% | 25.5% | 71.1% |
| 2023 | 2.5% | 23.0% | 74.5% |
| 2024 | 3.0% | 24.2% | 72.8% |
RED-condition B/C roads peaked at 3.4% in 2021 and 2022. Combined RED and amber stood at 27.2% in 2024 — more than a quarter of the B/C network needing or approaching maintenance.
GREEN Spend — But Preventative Output Is Shrinking
£21.4m
DfT capital allocation 2025/26
£27.2m
Projected capital spend 2025/26
81%
Estimated preventative share
Durham outspends its DfT allocation — yet admits "the works required far exceed the budget available" and resurfacing mileage has halved since 2020/21. The GREEN spend rating measures investment intent, not whether the network is keeping pace with deterioration.
The 2,325km Unclassified Network
60% of Durham's roads assessed by Coarse Visual Inspection — not SCANNER
| Year | U-roads in RED condition |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 24% |
| 2021 | 22% |
| 2022 | 25% |
| 2023 | 23% |
| 2024 | 17% |
CVI, Not SCANNER
Durham uses Coarse Visual Inspection for unclassified roads — two competent operators in a van recording visible defects. Classified A and B/C roads are surveyed by SCANNER on a two-year cycle. That means network-level condition knowledge on 60% of Durham's roads depends on visual assessment, not laser scanning.
Even at the improved 17% RED figure, roughly 395km of U-roads need replacement-level maintenance — estate streets, village routes and rural lanes across County Durham.
The Council's Own Caveat
Durham states its unclassified network "has improved from 25% in 2022, where maintenance should be considered, to 11% in 2025" — using a broader maintenance threshold than the RED category alone. The published RED percentages above are the DfT RDC01 figures.
From 2026/27, a new PAS 2161 methodology will replace the current three-band system with five categories — another break in comparability to watch for.
Why This Matters For Section 58
To rely on the Section 58 defence, a council must show it had a reasonable system for knowing the condition of its roads. For Durham's unclassified network, ask:
- • When was your road last CVI-surveyed — and how current is that data?
- • If 17-25% of U-roads were RED at recent surveys, what was done about yours specifically?
- • Does AI camera data from inspector vans cover your route, or only scheduled corridors?
- • Can the council confidently claim detailed knowledge on a network it assesses by eye?
Durham supplements CVI with AI cameras in 16 highway inspector vans — but that is reactive coverage on driven routes, not comprehensive network measurement.
198,463 Potholes in Five Years
Reactive repair volume rising while preventative resurfacing falls — the signature of a network running to catch up
| Year | Potholes filled (estimate) | Resurfacing (linear miles) |
|---|---|---|
| 2020/21 | 34,286 | 136.91 |
| 2021/22 | 36,050 | 108.35 |
| 2022/23 | 39,557 | 79.71 |
| 2023/24 | 45,526 | 74.81 |
| 2024/25 | 43,044 | 71.92 |
| Five-year total / latest | 198,463 | −47% since 2020/21 |
~109 Potholes a Day, Every Day
Averaged over five years, Durham fills around 109 potholes per day. The council anticipates 45,000 repairs in 2025/26. A network producing defects at that rate is one where potholes routinely form between inspections — exactly the scenario where prior reports and photographic evidence decide claims.
Less Resurfacing, More Patching
Durham's own report: "the areas/lengths treated over the previous 5 years has decreased even though our budgets for highway maintenance activities have remained reasonably static" — driven by inflation on labour, plant and materials. Reactive patching without preventative resurfacing is the cycle that creates repeat potholes on the same stretch of road.
Durham Admits Its Own Surveys Can Be Flawed
The council's own assessment of SCANNER and CVI — in its own words
"I would suggest the current mechanisms for gathering condition data, SCANNER and CVI can be flawed due to the inflexibility of the rulesets within SCANNER. Particularly in highway authorities, similar to Durham, with a high percentage of rural network. There is also the potential for human error when undertaking the CVI condition surveys."
— Durham County Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
"Investment: Maintaining the highway network is costly, the works required far exceed the budget available therefore all potential schemes are prioritised taking into consideration several factors including condition data, road hierarchy, accident history, Highway Inspector recommendations, Members concerns and Customer reports."
— Durham County Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
"Like all highway authorities unfortunately there isn't enough budget to allow us to bring all our highway network to green condition."
— Durham County Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
What These Admissions Mean
Durham formally acknowledges that its primary condition assessment tools may not accurately reflect reality on its rural network — and that budget constraints mean not every road can reach green condition regardless.
That is documented knowledge that blanket Section 58 defences — "we inspect our network regularly and had no reason to know about this defect" — may not withstand scrutiny when paired with prior reports and photographic evidence.
The 95% Repudiation Rate
Durham states: "the authority has a repudiation rate of 95%, this is the 3rd party public liability claims that are refuted and not paid." That is presented as a performance metric — lower insurance premiums, fewer payouts.
For claimants, it signals an aggressive refusal strategy. Generic claims without prior-report evidence or defect-age photography will almost certainly join that 95%.
Claiming Against a Well-Funded AMBER Council
Honest assessment: Durham invests seriously — but fights claims hard. Here is how that changes your approach
What Works In The Council's Favour
- ✓ GREEN spend scorecard — capital spend exceeds DfT allocation (£27.2m vs £21.4m projected 2025/26)
- ✓ ~81-86% of spend classed as preventative over six years
- ✓ A-road condition stable and slightly above national average
- ✓ AI cameras in 16 inspector vans supplementing SCANNER/CVI
- ✓ 95% claim repudiation rate — experienced, resourced defence team
Expect a well-prepared Section 58 defence. Durham knows how to refuse claims and will cite its inspection regime and AI investment.
What Works In Yours
- ✗ AMBER condition — 17-25% of U-roads in RED at recent surveys
- ✗ 60% of network assessed by CVI with admitted human-error potential
- ✗ Council admits SCANNER rulesets are "flawed" for rural networks
- ✗ 198,463 pothole repairs in five years — defects form faster than prevention catches them
- ✗ Resurfacing halved (136.91 → 71.92 miles) while pothole fills rose 26%
- ✗ "Works required far exceed the budget available" — council's own words
The Winning Strategy Here Is Specificity
Against a council with GREEN spend and a 95% refusal rate, your claim lives or dies on the specific defect:
- • Prior reports of the same pothole (FixMyStreet, council online reports) — proof of actual notice
- • Photos showing the defect's size, depth and visible age (weathered edges, previous patching)
- • The road's class — on a U-road, the CVI survey limitations and admitted human-error risk are your strongest structural arguments
- • Whether Durham's AI inspector coverage actually includes your route
Mac builds exactly this case: he searches for prior reports, assesses your photo evidence, and cites Durham's own transparency data — including its admissions on survey flaws — where it helps you.
Hit a Pothole in County Durham?
A council that refuses 95% of claims demands a well-built case. £35 for a professional claim pack.
DIY Claim
- • Submit photos and invoices
- • Use generic template letter
- • No CVI survey-flaw argument
- • No prior-report search
- • No repudiation-rate context
Professional Claim Pack
- ✅ U-road RED condition documented
- ✅ SCANNER/CVI flaw admissions cited
- ✅ 198,463 repairs in five years referenced
- ✅ Prior reports searched and attached
- ✅ Section 58 rebuttal tailored to Durham
No percentage fees. You keep 100% of any compensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Durham spends above its DfT allocation — can I still claim?
Yes. The DfT Spend scorecard is GREEN, but your claim turns on the specific defect, not aggregate spend. Durham is AMBER on condition and best practice, fills roughly 40,000 potholes a year, and admits resurfacing output has halved since 2020/21 despite static budgets. Section 58 is about whether your particular pothole was reasonably inspected and repaired — not whether the council outspends its DfT grant.
What if my pothole was on an unclassified rural road?
U-roads make up 2,325km — 60% of Durham's 3,843km network — and are assessed by Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI), not SCANNER. Durham's own report admits CVI carries "potential for human error" and that SCANNER rulesets are "flawed" for authorities with a high percentage of rural network. At the last survey, 17% of U-roads were in RED condition — down from 25% in 2022, but still roughly 395km of residential and rural routes needing replacement-level maintenance.
Durham rejects 95% of liability claims — does that mean I should not bother?
No — it tells you the council fights claims aggressively and will lean on Section 58. Durham's own transparency report states a "repudiation rate of 95%" on third-party public liability claims. That is not a measure of claim validity; it is a measure of refusal rate. A well-evidenced claim citing prior reports, photographic proof of defect age, and Durham's own admissions on survey limitations is exactly what generic rejections are designed to filter out.
Durham says U-road condition improved from 25% to 17% RED — does that weaken my claim?
It depends on timing and evidence, not the headline. The 25% figure is from 2022; the 17% is from 2024 — both measured under CVI, which Durham itself notes can involve human error. Even at 17%, roughly one in six unclassified roads is in RED condition. If your incident predates the improvement, or your road was not recently CVI-surveyed, the network-level trend does not prove your specific defect was known and ignored.
Durham admits SCANNER and CVI condition surveys can be flawed — how does that help?
It undermines blanket Section 58 defences. Durham's report states SCANNER rulesets are "inflexible" and "can be flawed" for rural authorities, and that CVI surveys carry "potential for human error". If the council's own condition data may not accurately reflect your road, it cannot confidently argue it had reasonable knowledge of every defect — especially on the 60% of its network assessed by eye from a van.
Resurfacing has halved since 2020/21 — does that mean fewer potholes?
The opposite. Durham resurfaced an estimated 136.91 linear miles in 2020/21 but just 71.92 miles in 2024/25 — a 47% drop — while pothole repairs rose from 34,286 to 43,044 over the same period. The council attributes the resurfacing decline to inflation on labour, plant and materials. Less preventative work and more reactive patching is exactly the pattern that produces the potholes claimants hit.
Data sources: Department for Transport — Local Road Maintenance Ratings 2025 to 2026 | Durham County Council Department for Transport Pothole Return (2025). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Reusable evidence record
Council rating evidence and provenance
Rating period: 2025-2026 · Reviewed 19 July 2026
Observed DfT fact
Overall AMBER; condition AMBER; spend GREEN; best practice AMBER.
Cautious interpretation
This is network-level context. The rating does not determine liability for a particular incident or establish what was known about a specific defect.
Correction status: No correction recorded.