Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to repair damage to the road outside his home after his car was stolen and burnt. The Ombudsman will not use his discretion to consider this complaint as it is reasonable to expect Mr D to use the available legal remedies.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council failed to repair damage to the road outside his home after his car was stolen and burnt. He says the damage made his home dirty, caused punctured tyres and harmed wildlife. He says it affected his relationship with his neighbours, who believe he has not tried to remedy the damage. He also says it cost him at least £400 to do some repairs himself, after the Council decided not to do further work.
2. Mr D says the Council is not being truthful when it says someone visited the site and found no damage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).
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 have considered all the information Mr D provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mr D with my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr D’s car was stolen from his drive and burnt on the road outside his house. The Council says after the car was removed an operative visited the site to clear debris. The Council says this left scorch marks which they could not remove. It also says they are monitoring the situation and will act if there is deterioration. Mr D disputes this and says the Council only laid down material to soak up petrol and oil. He says the road is still damaged, with holes and fragments of glass protruding from the road surface.
7. Mr D says he undertook some repairs to the road himself after the Council’s visit. He says this cost him at least £400 in time and costs. Mr D would like the Council to repair the road and pay him for the work he did.
8. The Council has declined to do further work at the site. It says the Council will monitor the site and act if necessary.
9. Most of Mr D’s complaint is about negligence. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether a council has been negligent, and we have no powers to enforce an award of damages. As Mr D seeks repayment of the money he spent to repair the road, it is reasonable to expect him to seek remedy through the Council insurers and later in small claims court, if necessary. Mr D can also apply to a Magistrates’ court for an order to require the Council to repair the road.

Site visit

10. After Mr D’s complaint to the Council in early September 2019, the Council sent someone to inspect the site. It said there was no debris visible. Mr D says no one visited the site as he has not identified anyone on his CCTV. He also says debris would be clearly visible to anyone visiting.
11. I do not consider it a good use of public resources to investigate Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s site visit. This is because the Ombudsman should not investigate complaints about complaints procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. This matter could also be resolved by Mr D using a legal remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr D to use the available legal remedies.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman