Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that his car was damaged during roadworks. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his car was damaged during roadworks. Mr X says the Council have wrongly told him his claim is with the sub-contractor and that there have been delays dealing with his complaint. Mr X says this has caused him stress and he has had to drive with a damaged car. Mr X would like the Council to pay for the damage or ensure that the sub-contractor pays.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained that his car windscreen was damaged during roadworks on a highway being carried out by a sub-contractor. So, in effect, Mr X’s complaint is that the Council or its sub-contractor has been negligent.
7. The Council has considered Mr X’s claim for compensation, but did not accept it was liable for damage to his car. It says the sub-contractor is responsible for the damage. Mr X may pursue his claim by taking the Council or the sub-contractor to court.
8. Only the court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the organisation.
9. I cannot decide whether the Council has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. This means I would usually expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers. I do not consider there is any reason why Mr X cannot do this, so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s compliant because it is reasonable for him to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman