Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided her company was liable for pavement damage. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. The courts are best placed to consider any continuing dispute over liability.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided her company was liable for pavement damage following an inspection in late 2023. She says the damage to the pavement predates the building works carried out on behalf of her company.

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. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X complains the Council wrongly decided her company was liable for pavement damage and sent her an invoice to cover the cost of repairs in late 2024. Ms X says she sent the Council evidence showing her company was not liable for the damage as it happened before the building works carried out on behalf of her company.
8. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. So, we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. The Council considered the evidence provided in support of Ms X’s claim she was not liable but maintained its decision that Ms X’s company was liable. The Highways Act 1980 (“the Act”) gives the Council the right to recover costs in this way. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.
9. The Act does not provide Ms X with any appeal mechanism or formal right of appeal. This means Ms X could only dispute the claim in defence of action at court by the Council to recover the cost of repairs. We cannot make decisions about liability for damage. The courts are better placed to consider any continuing dispute over liability if and when the Council takes action at court to recover payment. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly decided her company was liable for pavement damage. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. The courts are best placed to consider any continuing dispute over liability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman