Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a personal injury claim as this is a matter for the courts and it is reasonable to expect the person affected to seek a remedy there. We will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling as a separate matter as this does not cause a level of injustice sufficient to warrant our involvement, and investigation would not lead to any meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of a friend, Mrs Y, who sustained injuries after she tripped on what Mr X says was a dangerous footpath defect. Mr X complains the Council:

• Failed to maintain public safety as the hazard was left unrepaired for seven years,
• Fabricated evidence in its response to his friend’s claim which Mr X says indicates institutional dishonesty and lack of accountability,
• Refused to engage with his formal complaints,
• Placed restrictions on his authority to act for his friend, and
• Failed to accept responsibility for the injuries sustained.

2. Mr X says the Council’s handling of this matter has caused his friend psychological distress and led to her withdrawing her claim for compensation.

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 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)
5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not investigate the Council’s alleged failure to maintain the section of footpath as this pertains to Mrs Y’s personal injury claim which is a matter that could only be determined in court.
9. The Council acknowledged its first liability rejection letter to Mrs Y contained errors and explained what steps it had taken to address these. It provided a further, comprehensive denial of liability. I recognise Mr X remains dissatisfied with this, but we will not investigate as any injustice caused by the initial fault was remedied by the Council’s further consideration. I do not consider Mr X’s complaint provides evidence of institutional dishonesty.
10. The Council did at first challenge Mr X’s authority to act on behalf of Mrs Y, but this was soon resolved. I do not consider Mr X was caused a significant injustice form how the Council responded to his subsequent complaints. For these reasons, we will not investigate these issues as separate matters.
11. I recognise Mrs Y is unhappy with how her claim was dealt with, but the Council did respond and refused to accept liability. Had Mrs Y wanted to dispute this, then it is reasonable to expect her to have taken her case to court.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the personal injury claim is for the courts and I do not consider that any Council fault in the handling of the claim or the subsequent complaints caused Mrs Y or Mr X a level of injustice that would justify our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman