Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to the pavement outside his home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement and we could not achieve anything for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council would not repair the pavement outside his home after it was damaged by a delivery to his neighbour. Mr X’s neighbour has now paid for the damage to be repaired. But Mr X says this has affected their relationship. He would like the Council to compensate his neighbour.

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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X paid for a dropped kerb to be installed outside his property. This included fresh tarmac on the pavement which is part of the public highway. A delivery to Mr X’s neighbour caused damaged to the tarmac. Mr X says the Council would not pay for the tarmac to be repaired because it was not dangerous. Mr X’s neighbour has now paid for the repair, but he says this has affected their relationship. Mr X says the Council should have billed the delivery firm on his neighbour’s behalf. He says the Council should compensate his neighbour for the costs he has incurred.
5. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault by councils. In deciding whether to investigate a complaint, we need to consider the alleged fault and injustice to the person complaining. We also need to consider what we could achieve. We do not investigate all the complaints we receive. We only look at those we consider the most serious.
6. The original damage to the tarmac was caused by a contractor working for Mr X’s neighbour. The Council was not involved in any way. The Council then decided not to repair the tarmac. This is a decision the Council was entitled was to take. Mr X’s neighbour has now agreed to pay for the damage caused. This was his decision and the Council was not involved. Mr X says the Council should compensate his neighbour. But the costs incurred all flow from the contractor’s original actions – which did not involve the Council. I do not consider there to be enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement. If the Ombudsman were to become involved, it is difficult to see what we could achieve for Mr X. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement, and an investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman