Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an insurance claim about road resurfacing works damaging her car. This is because it is reasonable for Miss X to go to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains, on behalf of Mr Y, about the Council’s handling of an insurance claim about damage caused to her car.
2. Miss X says the Council failed to investigate her complaint via its complaint’s procedures. She would like to be reimbursed £600 repairs costs plus compensation for distress and inconvenience.

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. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X is complaining about a car damaged by road resurfacing works and what happened when she tried to complain to the Council. She is unhappy with the Council telling her to contact its highways contractors directly.
8. In response to our query, the Council advises it has been dealing with Mr Y as the claimant, and its insurance section wrote to him last year. The Council says it did not respond to Miss X’s complaint for data protection reasons as she is not the claimant. It also says insurance claims are dealt with outside of the complaint’s procedure due to the legal remedy available.
9. We will not investigate. This is because, in effect, Miss X is saying the Council (via its contractors) has been negligent. Deciding whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only a court can to make its findings. I cannot decide whether the Council has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Miss X’s position to seek a remedy in court.
10. I do not consider there is any exceptional reason why Miss X cannot pursue these matters in court.
11. With respect to Miss X’s other points:
1. claims for damages are usually excluded from complaints procedures. This is because these are resolved via insurance claims or the courts, so the Council acted correctly to identify the matter as a damages claim.
2. regarding the Council advising Mr Y or Miss X to contact its highways contractors, this is often usual practice when a council arranges private contractors to provide a council service. In any case, this is part of the liability dispute of the claim involving legal questions of fault and indemnity to be determined in court and not by the Ombudsman.
3. Overall, however, we would not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint as a separate issue. This is, as we are not looking at the substantive complaint, it is not a proportionate use of public funds to look at process issues.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is reasonable for her to take her claim to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman