Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage caused to his car by a pothole or the Council’s decision to reject his insurance claim. This is because it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court. We did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about damage caused to his vehicle by potholes in the Council’s area. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his evidence when assessing his claim against its insurers and about the Council’s poor communication.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and distress.
3. Mr X wants the Council to explain discrepancies in its account and pay for the damage to his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X submitted a claim against the Council’s insurers in September 2024. The insurance claim was rejected. In essence, Mr X’s claim is that the Council’s negligence resulted in damage to his car.
10. Deciding about whether an organisation has been negligent 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 has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the Council.
11. Because the Ombudsman cannot decide whether the Council has been negligent and has no powers to enforce an award of damages, we expect someone in Mr X’s position to bring the matter to court. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Mr X cannot do this, and so we cannot investigate this complaint.
12. Mr X also complained about the Council’s poor communication. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the wording in its insurance claim response and clarified how it reached its determination. An investigation into this matter is unlikely to achieve any additional outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because we decided it is reasonable for him to take the matter to court. For the remainder of the complaint, an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman