Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car was damaged by some fly tipped material which the Council had failed to remove from the highway. This is because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his compensation claim at court. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint is not justified.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains his vehicle was damaged by some fly tipped waste which the Council had failed to remove from the highway. Mr B complains the Council has no reasonable system for inspecting this location and the Council’s insurer was wrong to refuse his claim for compensation. Mr B also complains the Council has not acknowledged or responded to his stage 1 and 2 complaints about this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not normally investigate complaints about vehicle damage caused by a claimed failure by a local highways authority to maintain a safe highway. This is because in effect such complaints are that an organisation has been negligent. Our role is to consider complaints of administrative fault. Negligence claims are best decided by an organisation’s insurers, and if needed, the courts.
7. Mr B has received the Council’s insurer’s decision on his compensation claim. The Council’s insurer has also reviewed its decision in response to further information Mr B has provided.
8. Mr B may now pursue his claim by taking the Council to court.
9. Only a court can decide if the Council was negligent, and if so, enforce an award of damages. We cannot recommend actions or payments that ‘punish’ an organisation.
10. So, I would usually expect someone in Mr B’s position to seek a remedy in the courts. I find it is reasonable for Mr B to do this and the initial fee for making a claim is relatively modest. Mr B may also seek legal advice if needed.
11. So, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the damage to his vehicle.
12. Mr B has also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint. We do not normally investigate complaints about complaints procedures if, as with this complaint, we are not investigating the substantive matter complained about. This is because it is unlikely such an investigation would be a good use of our limited resources or achieve a meaningful outcome.
13. I find an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint is not justified. This is because the substantive matter can only be decided by a court and the Council’s insurer has already reviewed its decision on Mr B’s claim. It is highly unlikely an investigation into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint would be a good use of our limited resources or provide a meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the damage to his vehicle because it is reasonable for Mr B to pursue his claim at court. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaint is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman