Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by a large pothole. This is because the complaint is late and it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains his car was damaged by a large pothole due to the Council’s failure to maintain a road it is responsible for. Mr B says the Council has wrongly rejected his compensation claim and the Council’s inspection regime for this road was inadequate for winter conditions. Mr B would like the Council to apologise and pay him compensation. Mr B would also like the Council to review its highway inspection and repair procedures.

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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 Mr B.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B received the Council’s decision on his compensation claim in May 2024. Mr B complained to us in October 2025. Mr B has not complained to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue he complains about. We would not normally investigate a late complaint and I have not seen any information to indicate there are good reasons for Mr B’s delay making this complaint.
8. But, in any case, 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.
9. Our role is to consider complaints of administrative fault. Negligence claims are best decided by an organisation’s insurers, and if needed, the courts.
10. Mr B may pursue his 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.
11. 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. 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.
12. So, I would usually expect someone in Mr B’s position to seek a remedy in the courts. I find it is reasonable for Mr B to do this.
13. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is late and it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman