Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s car. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that a Council-owned tree caused damage to his car. Mr X says a Council employee admitted the Council was liable but then denied liability. Mr X also complains of the time taken to respond to his concerns and complaint.
2. Mr X would like the Council to reimburse £250 for the damage to his car.

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)
5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council responded to Mr X to deny liability for the damage and rejected his compensation claim.
9. We will not investigate. The core issue is whether the Council is legally liable for the damage to Mr X’s vehicle and if it should pay compensation. Determining liability for alleged property damage and awarding compensation are matters that are more appropriately decided by the courts.
10. Mr X has an alternative legal remedy through the courts, specifically the small claims process, where the court can consider the evidence from both parties, decide if the Council was negligent, assess any disputed factual evidence, including the alleged statement by a Council officer, and determine if compensation is due. I note Mr X has expressly referred to pursuing the matter through the small claims court.
11. As we are not investigating the core liability issue, we will not separate out and look at how the complaint/claim process was handled by the Council. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice arising from the complaint/claim handling on its own.
12. In conclusion, the Ombudsman has no remit to legally decide liability for property damage nor compel councils to pay compensation. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman