Gloucestershire County Council (20 013 165)

Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 17 Mar 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council was responsible for damage to her car. This is because Mrs B may take the Council to court and it is reasonable for her to do this. Also, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mrs B’s claim for compensation is not justified.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs B, complains that one of her car tyres got a puncture because the Council left debris on the road after repairing a pothole. Mrs B says the Council has not accepted responsibility for the damage and has failed to respond to her correspondence about the matter. Mrs B would like the Council to reimburse the money she spent on a new tyre for her car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The Act 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

  1. I have considered Mrs B’s complaint form and a letter from the Council she provided. I have also shared a draft version of this statement with Mrs B and have considered her comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. In early 2020 the Council repaired a pothole on the road outside Mrs B’s home. Shortly afterwards Mrs B’s car got a puncture. Mrs B says this was because the Council left flint debris on the road after repairing the pothole.
  2. Mrs B put in a claim to the Council for the cost of buying a new tyre for her car. Mrs B provided an invoice from a garage which said the tyre could not be repaired because of flint in the tyre. The Council responded by saying it did not accept it was responsible for the damage to Mrs B’s car.
  3. Mrs B says because the Council did not respond to the point about flint debris left on the road she had to put in a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Mrs B says the Council responded by saying in line with its policy all debris would have been removed as part of the pothole repair.
  4. Mrs B says the Council then asked her to provide evidence. In response, Mrs B says she told the Council she could provide evidence from her neighbour and debris she had swept up after the puncture.
  5. Mrs B says she did not receive a response so she sent an email to say she felt she was being treated unfairly.
  6. Mrs B says in September 2020 the Council said its legal team would contact her in due course.
  7. Mrs B says she has chased the Council since then but has still not had a response. Mrs B complained to us in March 2021.

Assessment

  1. Mrs B says the Council was responsible for the damage to her car. But, the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about administrative fault. We cannot decide liability in complaints about damage to property. This is for the Council’s insurers and, ultimately, for the courts. Only the court can decide if the Council has been negligent. The court can decide what damages, if any, the Council should pay.
  2. Mrs B says she cannot afford to take the Council to court. But, the fees for putting in a court claim are relatively modest. Also, Mrs B may be eligible for money off the court fee. In addition, Mrs B may be able to claim the fees back if her claim is successful.
  3. So, I find Mrs B may take the Council to court and it is reasonable for her to do this.
  4. Mrs B also complains about the Council’s handling of her claim for compensation. But, we would not normally investigate a complaint about the handling of a complaint or money claim if we are not investigating the issue complained about. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a meaningful outcome. It will be for Mrs B to decide whether to give the Council more time to respond to her correspondence or to tell the Council she intends to start court action. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs B may take the Council to court and it is reasonable for her to do this. Also, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mrs B’s claim is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings