On 08/25/10 09:12 AM, Simon King wrote:
On 25 Aug., 02:07, "Dr. David Kirkby"<david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
...
The silly thing is, they have known about this defect for 9 months, but it was
given a low priority. 9 months later it damages our car, and the council denies
they were aware the road was dangerous.
Is there really evidence that they *were* aware of a pothole for 9
months??
Yes, it was noted by a routine inspection on the 29th April 2009 and given a
defect number 1948944.
So, when they now say that they were not aware the road was
dangerous (i.e., inspite of the pothole), they are in fact accusing
themselves of a failing safety assessment! Isn't this something they
can certainly be held responsible for?
I guess there's a difference between knowing something is wrong, and believing
it is dangerous.
What's even more strange is that despite now knowing it has now damaged a car,
the priority has not changed. It is still given a priority 3 repair! Though in
fact I know it has since been repaired.
But: IANAL
Simon
No, me neither. But I'm going to send back a letter, probably with a link to a
Sage worksheet showing the number of days since they first knew of it, and the
number of days between the previous inspection and the damage to the car.
Dave
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
