Perth and Kinross Council paid out for just nine of the 291 vehicle damage claims it received over the past two years
A councillor has questioned why the majority of claims made to Perth and Kinross Council (PKC) for damage done to vehicles by potholes on its roads were dismissed.
Last month the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) reported a Freedom of Information request response revealed PKC had, at that stage, paid out just nine of the 291 claims submitted over the past two years.
At a meeting of the Scrutiny and Performance Committee on Wednesday, June 3, Cllr Willie Robertson said he was “totally shocked” so few drivers had been reimbursed for the damage done to their vehicles.
According to the FOI, shared with the LDRS, PKC received 84 claims in 2024/25, rising to 207 in 2025/26. It paid out a total of £2172.21 for seven claims in 2024/25 and £735.89 for two claims in 2025/26. The local authority denied liability for 75 claims in 2024/25 and 24 in 2025/26. Two claims in 2024/25 were still being reviewed, as were 181 from last year.
At Wednesday’s meeting, it emerged a briefing note had been shared with PKC’s Scrutiny and Performance Committee which said the council had paid out on just five per cent of claims made to it last year. However, PKC has since confirmed those figures – shared privately with the committee – included all liability claims, not just those relating to potholes.
Cllr Willie Robertson represents Kinross-shire ward, where the most pothole-related claims were made last year with a quarter of all potholes claims amde to PKC in 2025/26 relating to Kinross-shire roads.
The Liberal Democrat councillor was “totally shocked” so few drivers had been reimbursed for the damage done to their vehicles.
He added: “I find it really surprising. Normally, when people contact me they’re really upset because they’ve hit a huge pothole and seriously damaged their car.”
Strathallan ward councillor Keith Allan said he himself had missed out.
The Conservative councillor said: “I have personal experience of our insurers not playing the game. I just think we need to have a good look at it.”
The convener, Independent councillor Colin Stewart, agreed “it does seem like a low percentage” and asked Cllr Robertson what next steps the committee should take.
Cllr Robertson suggested councillors be given a breakdown on the claims and why they are refused, to help inform future claimants.
He added: “There must be a consistent reason why so many claims are not being met or honoured. I think it would be helpful to know why claims are being rejected in such a huge way.
“When people go to the bother of making a claim they take photographs, they get statements from people who have witnessed the thing happening, they fill out the big form. It’s quite a laborious thing to do and people don’t just do it on a whim so I think it would be really useful to find that out and maybe have a report.”
SNP Strathmore ward councillor Jack Welch revealed he had suffered “extensive damage to two practically brand new tyres” prior to becoming a councillor and submitted two claims to PKC, “which were both refused”.
Cllr Welch told the committee he received “comprehensive” explanations for why his claims were refused, with one reason given being that the pothole had not been present when PKC last inspected that road.
He said: “In one of them it was because the giant pothole was off the road surface, at the side of the road, and therefore was not an area that was essentially the responsibility of Perth and Kinross Council.
“And the second instance was that in terms of the process and procedure around statutory inspections, a statutory inspection had been carried out on that section of carriageway, which was evidenced, and there was no pothole at that time. Unfortunately, the pothole had occurred between then and me driving into it and, unfortunately, all I was thanked for was for notifying them there was a giant pothole, which was subsequently repaired very quickly it must be said.”
Conservative councillor Angus Forbes queried if refusal decisions lay with PKC or its insurance company.
He said: “I wonder if this is not a cost to Perth and Kinross Council. I assume this is covered by our insurance policy and therefore it’s entirely the insurance company’s decision whether to pay out or not pay out and, if they paid out more would it put our premium up?”
Following the discussion, the committee’s convener Colin Stewart called for officers to provide members with:
- a breakdown of the reasons for refusal
- a comparison with other local authorities
- where the responsibility for pay-outs lie and the information decisions are based upon.
He proposed the committee then have a sit-down discussion with the relevant council staff to raise any further questions that arise. This was unanimously agreed.




You must be logged in to post a comment Login