Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an invoice the Council issued. This is because the courts are better placed to consider the issue at the heart of his complaint, that of whether he should have to pay the invoice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has decided he is liable for damage to paving and a tree because of building works carried out as his property. Mr X says the Council’s charges of almost £7,000 to repair the damage is too high. He also disputes liability for the damage to the tree and some of the paving damage.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him significant distress and financial burden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X undertook works on his property. The Council inspected the public footpath nearby after the works had started. It decided the building works had caused some damage to a nearby footpath and tree.
7. The Council sent Mr X a letter setting out the charges of almost £7,000.
8. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and, but for that fault, officers would have made a different decision. So, we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. The Council considered the evidence provided in support of Mr X’s claim he was not liable but maintained its decision that Mr X’s was liable. The Highways Act 1980 (“the Act”) gives the Council the right to recover costs in this way. When considering Mr X’s complaint, the Council noticed an error in the charges and reduced the amount payable to almost £6,000. It clearly set out the revised breakdown of charges in its complaint response. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.
9. The Act does not provide Mr X with any appeal mechanism or formal right of appeal. This means Mr X could only dispute the claim in defence of action at court by the Council to recover the cost of repairs. We cannot make decisions about liability for damage. The courts are better placed to consider any continuing dispute over liability if the Council decides to take action at court to recover the charges. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the courts are better placed to to consider matters of liability and damage.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman