Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about landscape maintenance. This is because the courts would be better placed to consider Mr Y’s claim for compensation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to pay him compensation for the disruption and inconvenience caused by maintenance works following a landslip near his home.
2. Mr Y says he suffered from disruption, noise, dust and inconvenience for eight months during the works and is seeking £5,000 in compensation. He also says the Council has paid others but not him, which he sees as unfair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y owns a property next to an embankment. In February 2020, part of the embankment slipped, posing a risk to public safety. The Council repaired the embankment but this work took several months. During this time earth was piled up at the rear of Mr Y’s property, which he had recently bought.
7. Mr Y says the Council’s work significantly impacted him as he was:
• unable to access the back of his property for large periods;
• unable to park cars in his garage;
• forced to keep furniture in storage as he could not move into his property for several months, costing £200 each month; and
• unable to work from home due to the noise and dust created by the works.
8. Mr Y complained to the Council in July 2020. The Council responded, recognising the frustration Mr Y felt but said it could not offer him compensation. It also said the work would end the following month. Mr Y was not satisfied with this response and asked the Council for a second response in August.
9. The Council responded in September. It acknowledged the inconvenience Mr Y had experienced during the works but denied fault. It said the works had been necessary to protect the stability of other homes on the embankment but apologised for the disruption. It said it would not however, pay Mr Y compensation. Mr Y then asked us to investigate in February 2021.

Analysis

10. Mr Y’s injustice largely relates to the impact of the embankment works including the cost of keeping furniture in storage and a loss of his ability to work due to dust and noise. Mr Y seeks to hold the Council responsible for these costs through compensation. However, we are not able to decide liability or award damages, such as the costs of storage facilities. This is the role of the courts, often initially after a claim has been made to the Council’s insurer.
11. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as costs for furniture storage or loss of earnings, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the Council’s insurer or if necessary, the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to pursue his claim through insurance or the courts. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the courts would be better placed to consider Mr Y’s claim for compensation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman