Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his claim for damages after his car was damaged by a kerb and pavement in front of his property. This is because this is a complaint about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. We cannot decide a negligence claim.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has wrongly refused his insurance claim after his car hit a damaged kerb and pavement in front of his property. Mr X says it caused approximately £8000 worth of damage to his car and the pavement has still not been properly repaired.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

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. Mr X complains about the decision by the Council’s insurers to refuse his claim after his car was damaged driving over a damaged kerb and pavement in front of his property. Mr X says the wrong decision has been made on his claim and the Council incorrectly claims to have repaired the kerb and pavement. He says it is still badly damaged.
8. The Council’s insurers explained its reasons for refusing Mr X’s claim in its May 2025 response, setting out its defence against a negligence claim on this case.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. We cannot decide a negligence claim. 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. Also, only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay any damages sought. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ the Council. We would expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, either directly or via his insurers.
10. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to pursue his claim in the courts if he disagrees with the decision to refuse his claim and wants to challenge it further. It is not a matter we can decide for him. Making a claim in the courts is a simple, low cost and accessible process with fees set on a sliding scale depending on the level of the monetary claim. Those on a low income can apply for help with the fees.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is about negligence which is a legal matter for the courts to consider and decide. If Mr X wishes to pursue his claim further it is reasonable to expect him to use his right to make his claim in the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman