Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay by the Council in replying to the complainant’s complaint about damage to his mobility scooter. That is because it is not unreasonable to expect him to seek a remedy in the courts or through insurers.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council has delayed replying to his complaint that faulty dropped kerbs broke his mobility scooter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Deciding whether an organisation is liable for damage to property such as a mobility scooter usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only the court can to make its findings. In addition, only a court can decide if an organisation is liable and so should pay damages. We cannot rule on this and we have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, we would usually expect someone in Mr B’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through insurers. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mr B cannot do this so we will not investigate his specific complaint about damage to his mobility scooter. We would not investigate his complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the matter when we are not investigating the substantive issue leading to the complaint.
9. When making his complaint to us Mr B raised a more general complaint. He said several senior local government officers are preventing any of his emails being answered without giving any prior notice. He believes the Council is not acting in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and other legislation. It is open to Mr B to make a separate complaint to us about this issue.
10. Mr B said the Council has not complied with the Freedom of Information Act or his Subject Access Request. We would expect him to refer these issues to the Information Commissioner. That is because the information Commissioner’s Office is the body with the appropriate powers and expertise to consider these matters.
     

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is not unreasonable to expect him to seek a remedy in the courts or through insurers.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman