Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions after he reported a large pothole which damaged his vehicle. This is because the courts are in the best position to decide the main issue complained about.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains his vehicle was damaged after hitting a large pothole. Mr B says after he reported this pothole, the Council provided template responses from a ‘no reply’ email address and wrongly refused to take action, saying the pothole did not meet the Council’s criteria for repair.
2. Mr B also complains the Council ignored his complaint about this for over two months and has not provided an update on his insurance claim for the damage to his vehicle.
3. Mr B would like the Ombudsman to review both the Council’s handling of the pothole he reported and the Council’s handling of his complaint. Mr B would also like the Council to reimburse his repair costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council has explained its use of automated responses and ‘no reply’ email addresses for common customer highways updates. This is ultimately a matter for the Council to manage, and it is clear the automated response sent to Mr B included relevant information about the specific defect he reported.
9. The Council has also explained that its emails from ‘no reply’ mailboxes include a notice saying that replies will not be read and must be sent to the relevant team.
10. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation into how the Council responded to the road defect reported by Mr B.
11. Mr B’s complaint about how the Council assessed this defect is directly linked to his claim for compensation and ultimately whether the Council was negligent.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The Council has not considered Mr B’s compensation claim yet. The information indicates there was a misunderstanding between Mr B and the Council about the status of Mr B’s claim. The Council has recently clarified the situation and has told Mr B how to pursue a claim for the damage to his vehicle.
15. If the Council does not provide an outcome Mr B is satisfied with, he may pursue his claim by taking the Council to court. The courts are in the best position to decide the issue complained about. Also, unlike the courts, we have no powers to enforce an award of damages.
16. I find it is reasonable for Mr B to do this and the initial fee for making a claim is relatively modest. So, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaints about the damage to his vehicle or how the Council classified this defect.
17. Mr B also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. We do not normally investigate complaints about complaints procedures if, as with this complaint, we are not investigating the substantive matter complained about. This is because an investigation is unlikely to be a good use of our limited resources or achieve a meaningful outcome.
18. The Council has now responded to Mr B’s complaint and has addressed the main issues he has complained about. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the courts are in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its statutory duty to maintain the highway. An investigation into the ancillary matters complained about is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman