348km of RBWM Roads Have No Published Condition Data
More than half the Royal Borough's highway network — every unclassified road — shows NA% for condition in the council's own transparency report, year after year. Meanwhile pothole fills have surged from 894 to 2,791 in five years, the DfT rates the borough AMBER overall on incomplete road condition data, and capital spend still runs at more than double the DfT allocation.
What The DfT Scorecards Show
2025/26 ratings for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead — with an important data caveat
*Incomplete road condition data
The Department for Transport flags that RBWM's overall, condition and best-practice scorecards are based on incomplete road condition data. That reflects a gap the council's own report confirms: SCANNER survey percentages exist for A and B/C roads only. For 348km of unclassified roads, the transparency report lists NA% in every year — and the council states U-roads are inspected by highway inspectors using CVI/DVI, not formal network surveys.
Best Practice is also AMBER: the council confirms it does not have a highways asset management performance management framework against which it regularly tracks performance.
Well-Funded, Partially Measured
RBWM projects spending more than double its DfT allocation — yet the condition picture the DfT can score is incomplete, and the borough itself fills potholes at an accelerating rate.
What The Condition Data Shows
Five years of published SCANNER data from RBWM's transparency report — classified roads only
A-roads (149km — 22% of network)
| Year | Red | Amber | Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 3.8% | 24.2% | 72.0% |
| 2021 | 3.5% | 23.0% | 73.4% |
| 2022 | No data collected | ||
| 2023 | 3.4% | 22.0% | 74.6% |
| 2024 | 6.4% | 21.5% | 72.1% |
RED A-roads nearly doubled from 3.4% to 6.4% between 2023 and 2024. Collections are carried out annually. The council notes it moved to a new survey supplier in 2024.
B and C roads (170km — 26% of network): RED rising
| Year | Red | Amber | Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 3.9% | 24.95% | 71.15% |
| 2021 | 3.9% | 24.95% | 71.15% |
| 2022 | No data collected | ||
| 2023 | 4.75% | 26.5% | 68.75% |
| 2024 | 5.95% | 26.85% | 67.2% |
Good-condition B/C roads have fallen from 71.15% to 67.2% since 2020, while RED roads are up from 3.9% to 5.95%. Nearly a third of the B/C network is now amber or red.
“Due to budget restraints, at present U Roads in RBWM are not surveyed by scanner or other formal methods. U Roads are inspected by the Highway Inspectors using CVI/DVI as part of the routine inspections.”
— Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead — Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report (October 2025)
The 348km U-Road Blind Spot
52% of the borough's network — with no published red/amber/green condition data at all
| Year | U-roads in RED condition |
|---|---|
| 2020 | NA% |
| 2021 | NA% |
| 2022 | NA% |
| 2023 | NA% |
| 2024 | NA% |
What the council does instead
RBWM's Highway Asset Management Plan sets out a policy of using up-to-date information to understand asset condition. For U-roads, that information comes from highway inspector safety inspections (CVI/DVI) and resident report-it forms — not the SCANNER laser surveys that produce the red/amber/green percentages published for classified roads.
The council's carriageway investigatory level for potholes is 40mm depth (approximately 150mm across). A defect below that threshold may not trigger a repair — but it can still cause damage, and prior reports create a record of notice regardless.
The 2024 survey supplier change
RBWM notes that “% figures in red on A, B & C roads showed a decrease in 2024” and that the borough moved to a new survey supplier in 2024, “which could account for the sudden change.” The published RED percentages in the same report actually rose from 2023 to 2024 (A-roads: 3.4% to 6.4%; B/C: 4.75% to 5.95%).
When comparing year-on-year condition on classified roads, treat 2024 figures with caution — the council itself flags the supplier change as a potential source of discontinuity.
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 RBWM's unclassified network, ask:
- • When was your road last condition-surveyed — if ever, at network level?
- • If 348km of U-roads have no published condition data, what did the council know about yours?
- • Did a highway inspector pass your street on a CVI/DVI schedule — and when?
- • Were there prior report-it submissions for the same location before your incident?
A council cannot claim comprehensive network knowledge for roads it formally does not survey — and then publishes NA% for every year in its own transparency report.
8,992 Potholes in Five Years
Reactive repair volumes from RBWM's own transparency report — rising every year
| Year | Potholes filled (estimate) |
|---|---|
| 2020/21 | 894 |
| 2021/22 | 1,078 |
| 2022/23 | 1,734 |
| 2023/24 | 2,495 |
| 2024/25 | 2,791 |
| Five-year total | 8,992 |
| 2025/26 projected | 2,929 |
212% more pothole fills than 2020/21
RBWM filled 894 potholes in 2020/21 and 2,791 in 2024/25 — roughly eight every day. The council projects 2,929 fills in 2025/26. Against that reactive workload, it plans approximately 12.47km (7 miles) of carriageway resurfacing — about 1.9% of the 667km network.
Scrim and scanner vs patching
RBWM states that scrim and scanner data drives its resurfacing programme, while highway inspector safety inspections, resident report-it forms and seasonal weather drive patching. There is “no mathematical split” between preventative and reactive works — but the emphasis is towards preventative. The pothole fill trend suggests reactive demand is still rising sharply.
Flood Risk And Surface Water
The council's own admission on climate pressure — and what it means for road defects
“The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is one of the most at risk areas in the country from flooding. Over the last 3 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of flood events reported to the Council (2023 - 376, 2024 - 742) and as Lead Local Flood Authority, is in the process of refreshing its existing Flood Risk Management Plan to help it manage better flood risk in the Borough.”
— Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead — Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report (October 2025)
Flood-prone highway sections
RBWM's resilient highway plan identifies specific routes prone to flooding, including three access roads to Cookham (The Pound/Moor Road B4447, Ferry Lane A4094, Sutton Road A4094), Spring Lane in Cookham, and Norden Road in Maidenhead under the railway bridge.
In 2025/26 the council is spending £300,000 on improving highways drainage across its road network to deal with heavier, more intense rainfall events.
What this means for claims
Documented flood-prone routes and a doubling of reported flood events (376 to 742) show the council knows parts of its network face elevated water-related deterioration. Surface water and freeze-thaw cycles are primary pothole drivers.
If your damage was on a known flood-prone section, ask whether inspection frequency was adequate for the documented risk — especially where gully clearance is reactive rather than scheduled.
Claiming Against An AMBER Borough With GREEN Spend
Honest assessment: RBWM invests well — but its condition evidence has gaps
What works in the council's favour
- ✓ GREEN spend — capital projected at more than double the DfT allocation
- ✓ 81% of spend estimated as preventative in 2025/26
- ✓ HAMP aligned with UK Roads Liaison Group Code of Practice
- ✓ Participates in NHT customer satisfaction survey biannually
- ✓ Permit scheme for streetworks coordination since 2016
Expect a documented Section 58 defence on well-trafficked A and B roads with recent SCANNER data.
What works in yours
- ✗ DfT flags condition ratings as based on incomplete road condition data
- ✗ 348km of U-roads with NA% condition data every published year
- ✗ B/C RED roads up from 3.9% to 5.95% since 2020; green down to 67.2%
- ✗ 8,992 pothole fills in five years — defects forming faster than resurfacing
- ✗ No highways asset management performance framework (Best Practice AMBER)
- ✗ Flood events reported to the council doubled from 376 to 742 (2023–2024)
The winning strategy here is specificity
Against a borough with GREEN spend but incomplete condition data, your claim lives or dies on the specific defect:
- • Prior reports of the same pothole (FixMyStreet, RBWM report-it) — 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 absence of formal condition surveys is your strongest structural argument
- • Location on known flood-prone routes (Cookham access roads, Spring Lane, Norden Road)
- • Whether the defect met the council's 40mm investigatory threshold — liability and repair threshold are not the same thing
Mac builds exactly this case: he searches for prior reports, assesses your photo evidence, and cites RBWM's own transparency data where it helps you.
Hit a Pothole in Windsor and Maidenhead?
Incomplete condition data does not mean an automatic win — but it demands a precise claim. £35 for a professional claim pack.
DIY claim
- • Submit photos and invoices
- • Use generic template letter
- • No U-road survey-gap argument
- • No prior-report search
- • No flood-route analysis
Professional claim pack
- ✅ 348km U-road condition gap documented
- ✅ DfT incomplete-data caveat cited
- ✅ 8,992 pothole fills in five years referenced
- ✅ Prior reports searched and attached
- ✅ Section 58 rebuttal tailored to RBWM
No percentage fees. You keep 100% of any compensation.
Report a pothole in Windsor and Maidenhead
Reporting the defect creates a council record — useful evidence whether or not you claim
Council reporting channels
RBWM directs residents to its online report form for potholes. You will need to pinpoint the location on an interactive map and can upload a photo. The council maintains most borough roads but not motorways, trunk roads or private streets.
- Report a pothole online — RBWM report-it form with map and photo upload
- Local highway maintenance funding 2025/26 — transparency report and spending data
- National Highways roads: M4, M25, A308(M), A404(M), A404 — contact National Highways, not RBWM
Why reporting matters for claims
A dated online report shows the council had notice of a defect before your incident — or that it left a known pothole unrepaired within a reasonable time. On U-roads where no SCANNER condition survey exists, resident reports may be among the council's primary records of a specific street's condition.
Report first, photograph the defect with a reference object for scale, and keep your confirmation reference. For emergencies, RBWM directs residents to call its contact centre rather than use the online form.
Frequently asked questions
RBWM spends more than double its DfT allocation — can I still claim?
Yes. The DfT Spend scorecard is GREEN because the borough projects £8.99m capital spend against a £4.33m DfT allocation in 2025/26, with preventative maintenance estimated at 81%. But the overall rating is AMBER and the DfT flags RBWM's condition scorecard as based on incomplete road condition data. Section 58 turns on whether the specific defect that damaged your vehicle was reasonably inspected and repaired — not on aggregate spend.
What if my pothole was on a residential or unclassified road?
U-roads make up 348km — 52% of RBWM's 667km network — and the council's transparency report lists NA% for U-road condition in every published year. Due to budget restraints, U-roads are not surveyed by SCANNER or other formal methods; they rely on highway inspector CVI/DVI inspections only. That is a structural gap in network-level condition knowledge under Section 58.
Why did the DfT flag RBWM's ratings as based on incomplete road condition data?
The Department for Transport notes that RBWM's overall, condition and best-practice scorecards reflect incomplete road condition data. The council publishes SCANNER-based red/amber/green percentages for A and B/C roads only. For 348km of unclassified roads it publishes no condition category data at all — and admits U-roads are not formally surveyed.
Does the jump in RED A-roads to 6.4% in 2024 weaken my claim?
It may strengthen it on A-roads. RBWM states that red percentages on A, B and C roads increased in 2024, and that the borough moved to a new survey supplier in 2024, which could account for the sudden change. A-road RED condition rose from 3.4% in 2023 to 6.4% in 2024. The council itself flags the 2024 figures as potentially supplier-driven.
Pothole repairs have nearly tripled since 2020/21 — does that mean the roads are fixed?
No. RBWM filled 894 potholes in 2020/21 and 2,791 in 2024/25 while planning just 12.47km of carriageway resurfacing in 2025/26. A rising reactive repair count alongside limited preventative resurfacing suggests defects are forming faster than structural renewal can keep pace — exactly the scenario where prior reports and photographic evidence decide claims.
Which roads are not RBWM's responsibility?
National Highways maintains the M4, M25, A308(M), A404(M) and A404 within the borough. RBWM's report-a-pothole page directs residents to contact National Highways for defects on those routes. Private roads and streets are the responsibility of road owners or residents.
Do I need to report the pothole before claiming?
Reporting creates a dated council record — useful if the pothole was known before your incident or left unrepaired within a reasonable time. RBWM's online report form asks for location, approximate size, and optionally a photo. On U-roads where no formal condition survey exists, a resident report may be among the council's primary records of a specific defect.
Data sources: Department for Transport — Local Road Maintenance Ratings 2025 to 2026 | Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead — Local Highways Maintenance Transparency Report (October 2025). Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.