Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because the courts have said we cannot investigate where someone has already used their rights to proceedings in any court of law and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council failed to ensure the road was in good repair, which led to his vehicle being damaged. Mr Y says he made a claim to the Council, who initially blamed a contractor and then handled his claim poorly.
2. Mr Y says he has had to spend over £1,600 to repair his car as well as £350 in legal and court fees as well as his time spent on the claim. He feels the Council’s handling of his claim has led to unnecessarily increased costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. During highway maintenance work in the Council’s area in October 2020, Mr Y drove into a deep pothole after heavy rain. This caused damage to his car. He contacted the Council the day after the accident, asking it to repair the road surface and asking how he could make a claim against the Council for the cost of the repairs needed for his vehicle.
7. Mr y then subsequently made a claim against the Council for the damage to his car. He says the Council initially acknowledged the pothole was there, before blaming a contractor and then saying that the pot hole was not there and denied the claim. Mr Y says the handling of his claim took over a year and the misinformation from the Council led to court fees being incurred unnecessarily. He then approached us in April 2022.

Analysis

8. As Mr Y made a claim to the Council about the damage to his vehicle and then incurred court fees, unnecessarily or otherwise, Mr Y has used his right to approach the court to consider his claim. As Mr Y has used his right to have the issue considered in court proceedings, we cannot investigate. This is because the courts have said we have no authority to decide such a complaint, even where the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. Consequently, we cannot investigate this complaint.
9. As we cannot investigate the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint about the road condition. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the courts have said we cannot investigate where someone has already used their rights to proceedings in any court of law and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman