Source
Department for Transport — Local road maintenance ratings 2025 to 2026
amberOverall|red Conditiongreen Spendamber Best Practice
Richmond: Half of U-Roads Flagged for Resurfacing — DfT Condition RED
Richmond upon Thames earns GREEN for spend — projecting £7.0m in capital works against a £664,000 DfT allocation. Yet the DfT awards RED for condition, flags incomplete survey data, and the council's own last network survey — from 2021/22 — found 50% of unclassified roads had defects requiring intervention such as resurfacing, on a 380km network where 288.8km is residential.
50%
U-roads needing intervention (2021/22 DVI)
Richmond's last published Detailed Visual Inspection — four years before this June 2025 report — flagged half of 288.8km of unclassified roads for resurfacing-level work. A-roads were 44% and B/C roads 43% on the same stale survey.
A 380km Network — Three-Quarters Residential
Richmond upon Thames Council's own highway inventory from the June 2025 transparency report
380 km
Total carriageways
49.2 km
A-roads (12.9%)
42.0 km
B and C roads (11.1%)
288.8 km
U-roads (76.0%)
Section 41 — The Duty
Richmond states it has "a statutory duty to maintain and manage its highway asset in a safe and reliable condition under Section 41 of the Highway Act 1980." The borough maintains approximately 380km of carriageways and 700km of footways, plus 85 highway bridges, 17,828 gullies and 15,220 street lighting columns.
DfT RED Condition Flag
The DfT explicitly notes Richmond's overall, condition and best-practice scorecards are "based on incomplete road condition data, which has affected these ratings." That is the government's own caveat — not our characterisation — and it sits alongside a RED condition scorecard on the 2025/26 ratings table.
What The Condition Data Shows
The last Detailed Visual Inspection was in 2021/22 — supplemented by DfT single-data-list submissions in Annex B (October 2025)
2021/22 DVI — roads requiring intervention (resurfacing-level defects)
| Road class | Network length | Requiring intervention | Approx. km affected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal (A) roads | 49.2 km | 44% | ~21.6 km |
| Non-principal (B and C) roads | 42.0 km | 43% | ~18.1 km |
| Unclassified roads | 288.8 km | 50% | ~144.4 km |
| Pavements / footways | 700 km | 49% | ~343 km |
These figures measure defects requiring intervention such as resurfacing — not the same RED/Amber/Green categories used in some other councils' five-year tables. Richmond has not published an updated DVI since 2021/22 in this report. Approximate km affected derived from published percentages × network length.
Annex B — DfT single data list (where maintenance should be considered)
130-01 Principal roads
9.1%
Red
32.2%
Amber
130-02 Non-principal classified roads
6.88%
Red
25.23%
Amber
Skidding resistance data (130-03) shows 33.4% Red and 66.6% Green. No equivalent 130-series RAG breakdown for unclassified roads appears in Annex B — despite U-roads being 76% of the carriageway network.
"Based on the last Detailed Visual Inspection (DVI) conditions survey undertaken in 2021/22, the percentage of roads and pavement with defects that require intervention such as resurfacing, were as follows:"
— Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
Why This Matters For Section 58
To rely on the Section 58 defence, Richmond must show it had a reasonable system for knowing the condition of its roads. Ask:
- • When was your road last condition-surveyed — and was it before or after 2021/22?
- • If half of U-roads already needed intervention at the last survey, what was done about yours?
- • Why has no updated DVI been published in the June 2025 report if AI surveys are still being trialled?
- • Does the council's dangerous-defect KPI cover your pothole, or only defects reported through their system?
A council cannot claim detailed network knowledge from a four-year-old survey while the DfT rates its condition data incomplete.
The Managed Decline Admission
Richmond's own explanation for why condition lags spend — in its own words
"The Council highway asset, like many other Highway Authorities' highway asset, has been in a managed decline position for a number of years."
— Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
"There has been a sustained challenges in highway maintenance investment going back many years with an ever-increasing gap between asset needs and available budgets. This is a national challenge which has resulted a deterioration of the condition of footways and carriageways."
— Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
"Highways that are old and beyond their design life are increasingly fragile and less resilient to damage from wear and tear from heavier cars, buses and HGVs traffic and also more prevalent adverse weather conditions."
— Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
What This Admission Means
Richmond formally acknowledges its highway asset has been in managed decline — accepting deterioration rather than keeping pace with need. The council also states that once a road reaches a bad enough condition, "more expensive structural repairs, complete replacement or even closure are likely to follow."
When a council documents managed decline and an investment gap, it raises questions about whether reactive pothole patching satisfies the Section 41 duty of reasonable maintenance.
The Investment Response
Metis Consultants modelling showed "substantive additional investment would not only stop the present managed levels of decline but lead to better of the current network." The council's capital spend is projected to rise from £2.7m to £7.0m in 2025/26, with preventative maintenance jumping from 33.33% to 74.29%.
That is a plan — not proof your road was maintained before your incident. Forward spend does not retroactively fix a four-year-old condition survey.
GREEN Spend, RED Condition
Four years of Richmond's own spending data — and the sharp 2025/26 uplift
| Year | DfT capital (£000s) | Capital spend (£m) | Revenue spend (£m) | Preventative | Reactive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022/23 | £0 | £2.70 | £1.7 | 37.03% | 62.96% |
| 2023/24 | £204 | £2.70 | £1.8 | 33.33% | 66.67% |
| 2024/25 | £204 | £2.70 | £1.8 | 33.33% | 66.67% |
| 2025/26 | £664 | £7.00 | £1.8 | 74.29% | 25.71% |
More Than Ten Times The DfT Allocation
£664k
DfT capital allocation 2025/26
£7.0m
Projected capital spend 2025/26
74.29%
Estimated preventative share
Richmond plans to spend more than ten times its DfT allocation — yet the DfT still rates condition RED. Revenue funding is "spent on reactive maintenance such as potholes and defective paving repairs" while capital funds resurfacing — and reactive work still dominated at 66.67% as recently as 2024/25.
Gross Replacement Cost Context
Annex B estimates the gross replacement cost of A, B and U roads at £685,835,000 — with footway categories 1–3 at £158,504,000. Total maintenance spend in 2024/25 represented just 0.06% of current carriageway and footway asset value.
Richmond's own modelling showed it would take "vast investment" to reach 0% defects — the council is investing more, but from a low base relative to asset value.
2025/26 DfT Programme Streets
Additional DfT funding in 2025/26 is allocated to named works including Alexandra Road (East Sheen), The Byeway (North Richmond), Hanworth Road footways, Victoria Road footways, St Margaret's Road footway extension, and "Bus Stops and Potholes Repairs Areas throughout the borough (Carriageway Repair)."
If your pothole was not on a programmed street, the council may argue it was outside the current investment pipeline — which makes prior reports and photos of your specific defect more important.
TfL Funding Gap and the Wandsworth Shared Service
Underfunded A-roads and a cross-borough maintenance arrangement — with copy-paste errors in Richmond's own report
"TfL funding for the BPRN continues to fall short of what is needed, which has had a negative effect on the condition of the Borough's A roads."
— Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report 2025
"Richmond and Wandsworth Borough Council operate a Shared Service Arrangement for all Highway Maintenance functions, so the performance of each borough is directly compared."
— Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report — Annex B (October 2025)
TfL BPRN: £200k a Year
Richmond previously received an annual TfL grant for the Borough Principal Road Network until 2018/19. TfL funding has been "considerably reduced" and is now limited to a central amount boroughs must bid for competitively. Richmond secured £200,000 in 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26.
With 44% of A-roads flagged for intervention at the last DVI and 9.1% in RED on the DfT data list, the council documents underfunding of its most trafficked routes.
The Wandsworth Copy-Paste Problem
Richmond's June 2025 report states "Wandsworth Borough Council will ensure that any contractor appointed for future condition surveys holds this accreditation" when describing PAS 2161 transition — and references "a more sustainable Wandsworth" in its FM Conway contract section.
These are Richmond's published words, not ours. They suggest template text shared with Wandsworth and weaken confidence in borough-specific condition reporting — relevant if the council cites systematic asset management under Section 58.
Inspection and Response KPIs
Richmond carries out UKPMS-conforming DVI surveys, validated by engineer inspections, plus safety inspections on principal and non-principal roads under the 2016 Code of Practice. Hospitals, schools and busy routes are inspected more frequently.
100%
RCS-HOS-002: dangerous defect attendance within 24hrs (Q1–Q2 2025/26)
2026/27
PAS 2161 condition methodology due nationally — AI surveys still being trialled
Public complaints and defect reports are logged on the Brightly Confirm system — "the numbers of Carriageway or Footway Defects is one of Factors that are included" in maintenance programme selection. Prior reports through that system or FixMyStreet are direct evidence of notice.
Claiming Against a RED-Condition, GREEN-Spend Borough
Honest assessment: Richmond is investing heavily — but condition data tells a different story
What Works In The Council's Favour
- ✓ GREEN spend scorecard — capital projected at £7.0m against £664k DfT allocation
- ✓ Preventative share rising to 74.29% in 2025/26
- ✓ 100% dangerous-defect attendance KPI in Q1–Q2 2025/26
- ✓ FM Conway contract, UKPMS DVI surveys and published annual maintenance programme
- ✓ LoTAG/LoHEG benchmarking and shared-service performance comparison with Wandsworth
Expect a documented Section 58 defence citing inspection regimes and response KPIs. Generic claims will struggle.
What Works In Yours
- ✗ RED condition scorecard — DfT flags incomplete road condition data
- ✗ Last network DVI from 2021/22 — 50% of U-roads flagged for intervention
- ✗ Council admits "managed decline" and an ever-increasing investment gap
- ✗ 66.67% reactive maintenance spend as recently as 2024/25
- ✗ TfL A-road funding "falls short" — 44% of A-roads needed intervention at last survey
- ✗ Wandsworth copy-paste errors in Richmond's published transparency report
The Winning Strategy Here Is Specificity
Against a borough with GREEN spend and a 100% dangerous-defect KPI, your claim lives or dies on the specific defect:
- • Prior reports of the same pothole (Brightly Confirm, FixMyStreet, council 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 2021/22 survey gap and 50% intervention rate are structural arguments
- • Whether your street was on the 2025/26 DfT-funded programme list or outside the pipeline
- • Proximity to recent utility streetworks — Richmond operates a permit scheme with inspection and enforcement
Mac builds exactly this case: he searches for prior reports, assesses your photo evidence, and cites Richmond's own transparency data — including managed decline and stale survey admissions — where they help you.
Hit a Pothole in Richmond upon Thames?
A well-funded borough with RED condition data demands a precise claim. £35 for a professional claim pack.
DIY Claim
- • Submit photos and invoices
- • Use generic template letter
- • No 2021/22 survey-gap argument
- • No prior-report search
- • No managed-decline citation
Professional Claim Pack
- ✅ 50% U-road intervention rate documented
- ✅ RED condition / incomplete data argued
- ✅ Managed decline admission cited
- ✅ Prior reports searched and attached
- ✅ Section 58 rebuttal tailored to Richmond
No percentage fees. You keep 100% of any compensation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Richmond has a GREEN spend rating and is tripling capital investment — can I still claim?
Yes. The DfT Spend scorecard is GREEN because Richmond projects £7.0m capital spend against a £664,000 DfT allocation in 2025/26, with preventative maintenance rising to 74.29%. But the Condition scorecard is RED — the DfT flags incomplete condition data — and the council's last published network survey dates from 2021/22. Section 58 turns on whether the specific defect that damaged your vehicle was reasonably inspected and repaired, not on how much the council plans to spend next year.
What if my pothole was on a residential or unclassified road?
U-roads make up 288.8km — 76% of Richmond's 380km carriageway network. The council's last Detailed Visual Inspection in 2021/22 found 50% of unclassified roads had defects requiring intervention such as resurfacing — roughly 144km of residential streets. Annex B data submitted to the DfT lists 9.1% of principal roads and 6.88% of non-principal classified roads in RED condition where maintenance should be considered, but the borough-wide U-road RAG breakdown is not published in the same format.
Why does the DfT rate Richmond's condition RED when the council says investment is rising?
The DfT notes that Richmond's overall, condition and best-practice scorecards are "based on incomplete road condition data." The transparency report itself cites only a 2021/22 DVI survey for network condition percentages and admits the highway asset has been in "managed decline" for years. Capital spend is projected to jump from £2.7m to £7.0m in 2025/26 — but that is forward investment against a condition picture that is already years out of date.
Does Richmond sharing highway services with Wandsworth affect my claim?
Richmond and Wandsworth operate a Shared Service Arrangement for all highway maintenance functions, with performance directly compared between boroughs. Liability for your claim still rests with Richmond upon Thames Council as the highway authority for roads in this borough. The shared-service model means Richmond may invoke Wandsworth-benchmarked processes under Section 58 — but the council's own June 2025 report also contains copy-pasted Wandsworth references, which is a transparency weakness worth noting if the council cites systematic maintenance records.
Richmond attends 100% of dangerous defects within 24 hours — does that block my claim?
It helps the council only if they can prove your defect was classified as dangerous, notified through their Brightly Confirm system, and attended within 24 hours before your incident. The KPI RCS-HOS-002 showed 100% attendance in Q1 and Q2 of 2025/26 — but reactive maintenance still accounted for 66.67% of total maintenance spend as recently as 2024/25. Prior reports, photos showing defect age, and proof the pothole predated any inspection all matter when a council points to response-time KPIs.
TfL cut A-road funding — does that strengthen a claim on a main road?
Potentially. Richmond states TfL funding for the Borough Principal Road Network "continues to fall short of what is needed, which has had a negative effect on the condition of the Borough's A roads." Only £200,000 of TfL BPRN funding was secured in 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26. The council's 2021/22 DVI survey flagged 44% of A-roads for intervention, and Annex B reports 9.1% of principal roads in RED where maintenance should be considered — an admission of underfunded main-road maintenance the council documents itself.
Data sources: Department for Transport — Local Road Maintenance Ratings 2025 to 2026 | Richmond upon Thames Council Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report (June 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 RED; 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.