Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to warn residents of scheduled works to the public footway. This is because the matter does not cause him significant injustice and the courts are better placed to deal with claims for damage to property.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to give adequate warning of works to the footway near his home. He says his partner suffered damage to her shoes when trying to get into her car and that he is angry about the Council’s response to his complaint.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council carried out works to resurface the footway near Mr X’s home in 2020. Mr X says it did not give sufficient warning of the works so his partner did not have an opportunity to move her car until after they had been carried out. He says the only way to access her vehicle was to walk over the wet footway surface and this ruined her shoes and dirtied the inside of her car.
5. Mr X acknowledges the shoes were old and the impact of the issue was minor; his injustice is therefore not significant enough to warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman. Claims of property damage are also more appropriate for consideration by the courts.

6. While Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X significant injustice and claims of property damage are more appropriate for the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman