Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a claim about damage to Miss X’s car caused by potholes in the highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is reasonable for miss to seek a remedy in the courts if liability is denied.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council delaying her claim against it for damage to her car tyres caused by a pothole. She says the Council has required receipts for the replacement work which she no longer has.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says her car tyres were damaged by a pothole in the highway. She paid to have them replaced and submitted a claim against the Council’s public liability insurance. The Council wrote to her and asked for a copy of the receipt for the work carried out by the garage to replace the tyres. Miss X says she does not have a receipt but has sent the Council proof of a payment transaction. The Council is not satisfied with this as evidence to support the claim.
7. The legislation from which we take our powers also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts. In this case Miss X has submitted an insurance claim.
8. Most insurers will require evidence of any work paid for to cover the cost of the damages claimed and there is no fault in the Council requiring this. Miss X will need to provide a receipt which itemises the work she paid for before the claim will be decided. She could ask the garage to provide a replacement invoice to support her claim.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a claim about damage to Miss X’s car caused by potholes in the highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault and it is reasonable for miss to seek a remedy in the courts if liability is denied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman