Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts are better placed to consider the complaint and it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to go to court about the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council failed to maintain the highway, leading to a pothole which caused damage to Mr Y’s car. Mr Y says the damage has cost him approximately £900 to repair his vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y says his car has been damaged by a pothole on a road the Council maintains. He says the repairs to his vehicle cost him £900. The Council has told him how he can make a claim against its insurance for it to consider the cost of the repairs as a damages claim.
6. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
7. We cannot who has liability or which body should award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as costs for repairs, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts.
8. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. He may also be able to claim back any costs he incurs through the claims process. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to use his right to go to court about this matter.
9. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to pursue his claim through either the Council’s insurer or the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman