Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not agreeing to replace his windscreen after damage caused by its grass cutting staff, and delay in resolving the matter. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his legal liability claim and the outcome he seeks at court. Any delay has been caused by the disagreement on the Council’s level of legal liability, which can only be determined at court.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s car windscreen was chipped by Council staff strimming the grass. He complains the Council:
1. has only agreed to pay to repair the chip and not to replace the windscreen;
2. delayed in dealing with the matter.
2. Mr X is concerned that a repaired windscreen would fail if he drives over a speed hump or if it is jolted by potholed roads. He wants the Council to pay to replace his windscreen.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot determine whether a council is liable for damage to someone’s property. Only a council and its insurers or the courts can make those decisions. The Council has accepted legal liability for the chip to Mr X’s windscreen and has agreed to repair it. Mr X is disputing the level of liability the Council has by wanting it to pay for him to have the windscreen replaced, not repaired. As Mr X disagrees with the outcome of his claim of damages against the Council, he would need to pursue the matter at court. It is reasonable for him to do this because it is now only a court which can determine if the Council’s liability should extend to the outcome Mr X wants. We cannot determine the level of liability to which this or any other council should be held. It is also reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter at court because it issues binding orders on the parties, whereas we can only make recommendations to councils.
7. Mr X’s complaint of delay is about delay in the legal liability process in which we cannot intervene. Mr X confirms officers accepted liability for the damage early in the matter. His and the Council’s disagreement on the level of its liability and the appropriate outcome for his claim has caused the delay in resolving it, not any Council inaction. Once the Council confirmed its position on his damage claim, including its repair offer, it was for Mr X to pursue at court the different outcome he seeks. That legal liability disagreement can only be resolved by a court, as explained above.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to pursue his legal liability claim and the outcome he seeks from it at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman