Worcestershire County Council (25 008 301)

Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 28 Jul 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that her car was damaged by a pothole. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her compensation claim at court.

The complaint

  1. Mrs B complains her car was damaged by a large pothole which the Council had failed to repair or warn motorists about. Mrs B says the Council has wrongly refused her compensation claim for the damage to her car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The Act 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

  1. I considered information provided by Mrs B.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets. The Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways and carry out repairs where necessary. But importantly, the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
  2. 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.
  3. Mrs B may pursue her claim by taking the Council to court. 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.
  4. Also, the Council has relied on the statutory defence that it could not reasonably have been expected to put right this defect before the incident happened.
  5. Only the court can decide if the Council has been negligent and whether the Council is entitled to rely on this statutory defence. Also, unlike the courts, we have no powers to enforce an award of damages.
  6. So, I would usually expect someone in Mrs B’s position to seek a remedy in the courts. I find it is reasonable for Mrs B to do this.
  7. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to take the Council to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings