Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint that her car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Miss C to pursue her compensation claim at court. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of the claim is not justified.

The complaint

1. Miss C complains her car was damaged after hitting a pothole which the Council had failed to repair. Miss C says the Council has wrongly rejected her compensation claim. Miss C also says she has spent considerable time dealing with this matter and the Council delayed providing relevant information.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss C.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not normally investigate complaints about vehicle damage caused by highway disrepair. This is because in effect such complaints are that an organisation has been negligent. Our role is to consider complaints of administrative fault. Negligence claims are best decided by an organisation’s insurers, and if needed, the courts.
7. The Council has refused Miss C’s compensation claim. Miss C may now pursue her claim by taking the Council to court.
8. Deciding 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.
9. Also, the Council has a statutory defence if it can show it could not reasonably have been expected to put right this defect before the incident happened.
10. Only the court can decide if the Council has been negligent and whether the Council is entitled to rely on this statutory defence.
11. Also, unlike the courts, we have no powers to enforce an award of damages.
12. So, I would usually expect someone in Miss C’s position to seek a remedy in the courts. I find it is reasonable for Miss C to do this. The fee for making a court claim is relatively modest and help with fees is available for people on a low income.
13. So, we will not investigate Miss C’s complaint about the damage to her car.
14. Miss C also complains about the Council’s handling of her compensation claim. But, because we are not investigating the substantive matter, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of the claim would not be a good use of our limited resources or achieve a meaningful outcome for Miss C. So, such an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to take the Council to court. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of her claim is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman