Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and the courts are better placed to consider this complaint if Mr Y wants to pursue the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to issue residents with a notice of works prior to highway maintenance works beginning, has a lack of supervision for the contractors, including that the required signage be displayed at the maintenance site. He is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint, which he says was delayed.
2. Mr Y is seeking compensation for his daughter and her family for the inconvenience, potential danger and upset caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,

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

5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. In this case, Mr Y has made a claim to the Council for compensation for the inconvenience, potential danger and upset caused to his daughter and to him when he was visiting her. In this case, neither Mr Y, nor any member of his family were injured during the works. Mr Y says that inconvenience was however caused and this caused some upset. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. The claimed injustice is not a sufficiently serious harm or distress to justify our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
9. As Mr Y has already made a claim to the Council for compensation. The Council has rejected this claim. It is now for Mr Y to approach the courts if he wishes to pursue compensation.
10. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts. Consequently, any claim for compensation which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts.
11. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to pursue his claim through the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.
12. As we are not investigating the substantive issue of this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how Mr Y’s complaint was responded to and dealt with. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and the courts are better placed to consider this complaint if Mr Y wants to pursue the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman