Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s car caused by a highway defect because the Council’s payment of the claim is a sufficient remedy and it is unlikely that further investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his car was damaged by a highway defect which the Council failed to repair and that the Council delayed paying him for the car repairs. He also complains the Council did not deal properly with his freedom of information request. He says this meant he had to await reimbursement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X says his car was damaged by a highway defect which the Council failed to repair. He submitted a claim, and the Council accepted liability. Mr X complains there was a delay in the Council paying the claim.
8. Mr X also says that the Council has not responded to his freedom of information request.
9. The Council has now paid the claim. The Council’s payment of the claim provides a sufficient remedy for the complaint. We will not investigate this matter further because it is unlikely we could achieve significantly more for Mr X. Mr X wanted the Council to pay interest. We would not normally recommend this where the original sum was less than £1,000, as in this case. I see no reason to make an exception here.
10. If Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s response to his freedom of information request, it would be reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with Freedom of Information complaints and to decide whether the Council complied with its obligations under the relevant legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s payment of the claims is sufficient remedy and it is unlikely that further investigation would achieve significantly more for Mr X. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaints about freedom of information requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman