Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s claim for damages to his car. This is because it does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect the complainant to go to court.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X holds the Council responsible damage caused to his car by a defective speed bump. Mr X would like the Council to reimburse him for the cost of the repairs. Mr X also says the Council needs to improve its road inspection regime.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 the complainant. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain roads. The Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways and carry out repairs where necessary. But, the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
6. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, the person affected can apply to the magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway.
7. Mr X may use this process to try to get the Council to improve its inspection regime. I find it is reasonable for Mr X to do this. The court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work.
8. With respect to the claim for damages, we will not investigate because the matter of liability for damages is usually decided in the courts. It is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to the small claims court. The court is best placed to decide if the Council is liable for the damage and if Mr X is entitled to claim the costs requested.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court to decide the Council’s liability for his claim and the adequacy of its inspection regime.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman