Summary: Mr X complains a low hanging tree caused damage to his car. He says the Council should reimburse him for the costs he incurred because of this. The Ombudsman will not investigate because Mr X can refer his complaint to the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council after he parked under a low hanging tree and the tree’s branches scratched his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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

4. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and correspondence he sent to the Council.
5. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says he damaged his car when parking it next to a tree.
7. The Council is responsible for maintaining trees in this area and so Mr X believes he is entitled to claim back the costs of fixing his car from the Council.

8. Mr X contacted the Council with pictures of his car and a quote for how much it would cost to repair the car.
9. Mr X got in touch with the Council again after a fortnight because he did not receive a response. He says the Council told him it would resolve his query within 90 days.
10. Mr X referred the complaint to us as he was unhappy the Council repeatedly told him it would address his complaint within 90 days but did not directly address his queries.

Back to top

Analysis

11. The bulk of Mr X’s complaint relates to his request for compensation from the Council for the damage caused to his car. We would consider it reasonable for
    Mr X to refer this aspect of his complaint to the courts if the matter is not resolved by the Council’s insurers. This is because, unlike the Ombudsman, the courts can make a binding decision about liability and compensation.
12. Mr X has also expressed upset that the Council failed to acknowledge his complaint outside its generic acknowledgement of his emails. I can appreciate this likely frustrated Mr X but we will not investigate on this basis alone as the injustice he experienced is not sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to refer his complaint to the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman