Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his claim for compensation after his car was damaged by a pothole. This is because we would expect Mr X to resort to court action to resolve this matter. The complaint is therefore outside our legal remit.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his claim for compensation after his car was damaged by a pothole. Mr X says the Council’s actions do not meet the Seven Principles in Public Life and that the Council has failed to provide him with information he has requested.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered what Mr X said in his complaint and I have sent him my draft decision for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X seeks compensation from the Council after he had to replace a tyre on his car after it was destroyed by a pothole.
7. Mr X complains about the way the Council has handled his claim. He says its actions do not comply with the Seven Principles in Public Life as the Council has not been honest and open with him. Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide the information he requested from it, about road inspections and maintenance etc, after he made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
8. Mr X believes the Council would lose in court but that he would need legal representation to bring such a case. Mr X also says he would need the information he has requested from the Council, but which it has failed to supply, to take his case to court.

Analysis

9. We are unable to make a legal determination as to whether the Council was negligent and so responsible for the damage to Mr X’s car or to award compensation for negligence. Only the courts can do this. There is a simple, low-cost procedure open to anyone to make a money claim in the courts or Mr X could consider asking a ‘no win, no fee’ solicitor to take on his case. Mr X could also seek advice from a free advice agency such as Citizens’ Advice.
10. For these reasons, I consider it is reasonable to expect Mr X to resort to court action. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s handling of his claim but we would not investigate this as a separate matter given that the courts can provide the remedy Mr X seeks.
11. The UK body which deals with failures to properly respond to FOI requests is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We would expect Mr X to ask it to deal with his complaint that the Council has failed to supply information he has requested.

Back to top

Final decision

12. My decision is that the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court for the compensation he seeks and the ICO is best placed to deal with his FOI issues.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman