Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint about his compensation claim for vehicle damage. This is because an investigation would not achieve a meaningful outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains his car was damaged by a large pothole which the Council had failed to repair. Mr B says the Council’s contractor’s decision on his compensation claim was based on incorrect information.
2. Mr B says he complained about this to the Council, but the Council delayed providing a response before recently telling him to contact the contractor again with his ‘new information’. Mr B says this is not new information and the Council should not be referring him back to its contractor when it is the Council which is ultimately responsible for maintaining the highway network. Mr B also says he is not sure if the Council is still considering his complaint.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 Mr B.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council recently responded to Mr B’s complaint.
7. The Council explained the appeals policy for highways claims and told Mr B he may ask the Council’s contractor for a review of its decision. The Council set out the relevant criteria for a valid review request.
8. I find this response is clear both about what Mr B needs to do and that the Council will not be considering his complaint under the Council’s complaints procedure.
9. It is for the Council and its contractor to decide the process for appeals against decisions on compensation claims. Mr B has complained about the Council’s reference to his ‘new information’. But, this is not significant. The information indicates the Council was aware of Mr B’s reason for challenging the contractor’s decision, and ‘material error of fact’, which better reflects Mr B’s challenge, is a valid reason for asking for a review.
10. The Council’s correspondence with Mr B on this issue could have been quicker and also clearer about whether the Council would investigate under the Council’s complaints procedure. But, the Council has now provided a suitable response. It is not normally a good use of our limited resources to investigate complaints about complaints procedures if we are not investigating the substantive matter (Mr B’s claim for vehicle damage). Overall, an investigation would not achieve a meaningful outcome and our involvement is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because an investigation would not achieve a meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman