Summary: We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint about the Council’s rejection of her personal injury claim. This is because the courts are best placed to consider her complaint as it centres on a negligence claim.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains she suffered a personal injury after slipping on ice on a park path that the Council failed to grit. She is unhappy the Council rejected her claim.
2. Further, Ms Y complains about the handling of her claim by the Council’s claims handler, including delays in the process and the conflicting reasons it gave for rejecting her claim. Ms Y says the claims handler failed to respond to her requests for clarification. She says the claims handler’s rejection was based on inconsistent statements that were not supported by Council records. She says she feels lied to by the Council, particularly because Council records showed conflicting explanations from Council departments. Ms Y also says the Council failed to properly address the facial scarring that she was left with.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about administrative fault. We cannot establish liability in complaints involving damage to property or personal injury. Claims for personal injury and compensation are a matter for council insurers and, ultimately, for the courts.
9. Now the Council has rejected a formal claim from Ms Y, it is open to her to make a claim in court. I consider it would be reasonable for her to do so. Ms Y’s complaint centres on an ongoing dispute about liability and the Council’s reasons for rejecting the claim. The courts are the appropriate body to decide if the Council was responsible for the accident and, if so, what level of compensation should be made. These are judgements that only the courts can make. Also, as part of the claims process, Ms Y can apply to the courts to require the Council to disclose certain evidence. So, we will not investigate because it is reasonable to expect Ms Y to take court action.
10. Ms Y is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with her claim and related complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaint or claim handling as a standalone issue. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. So, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about Ms Y’s personal injury claim. The matter is best considered by the courts as it is really a negligence claim. It is reasonable to expect Ms Y to pursue court action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman