Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court about the matter, which is better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s response to complaints he made about highway repairs outside his home. Mr X said there had been damage to the front of his property and he is not satisfied with the repairs done by the Council.

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)

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about damage to his property during highway repairs. The Council said it has repaired and painted his property, but Mr X is unhappy with the repair.
7. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints about damage to property or injury to people arising from claims of negligence. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around legal torts are generally best decided by a court. Only a court can decide whether the problem should have been dealt with by the council before it caused harm or if the council is liable to pay “damages” for the loss or injury. We will therefore not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
8. Mr X complained he was not aware of the planned work to the highway. The Council said letters were sent to residents to warn them about the work and also apologised to Mr X. I do not think there is any worthwhile outcome achievable by further investigation of this matter.
9. Mr X complained he was unable able to park near his property during the work to the highway. He asked for a refund of his parking permit. In its response, the Council explained that other streets covered by the permit were available for parking and a refund would not be possible. There is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation of this part of Mr X’s complaint.
10. Mr X complained about the manner of member of Council staff. The Council apologised to Mr X and said it would investigate the matter. The Council said it was not able to give him further information due to data protection restrictions. There is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigation of this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to go to court about the matter, which is better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman