Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s repair work to his driveway. This is because there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s repair works to his driveway has left a visible patch on his driveway. He wants the Council to provide him with a financial remedy so he can restore the previous appearance. Mr X also complained the Council poorly managed his complaint. He wants the Council to provide him with an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A Council-owned tree and its roots caused damage to Mr X’s driveway. Mr X made a claim through the Council’s insurers and the Council subsequently carried out repairs to the damaged area. Mr X did not dispute the quality of the repair itself but was unhappy with its appearance. He said the black tarmac used was visibly different from the rest of his driveway and although he accepted it would fade over time, the repair remained noticeable. Mr X therefore asked the Council to provide a financial remedy to enable him to carry out further works to improve the appearance of the driveway.
6. The Council responded to Mr X and said the repair already carried out was reasonable and sufficient to settle the claim and that it would not accept liability for any further work. The Council also said its complaints procedure was not the appropriate route for seeking additional compensation and that if Mr X disagreed with its position, the matter would need to be pursued through the courts.
7. Determining whether Mr X is legally entitled to further financial remedy to carry out further works to his driveway would require consideration of liability and the appropriate level of damages. This is not the Ombudsman role. The courts are a better body to consider this. As Mr X has an alternative remedy through the courts, we will not investigate his complaint.
8. We will also not look into how the Council managed his complaint. This is because it would not be a good use of public money to do so as we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is another body better placed to consider his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman