Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for damage to the complainant’s motor vehicle. This is because the complainant has an alternative legal remedy, to pursue a claim of negligence through the courts. Only the courts can decide whether the Council was negligent. It is therefore reasonable to expect them to use their legal remedy.  

The complaint

1. X complains that the Council refused his claim for damage to their vehicle after they hit a defect in the road. X say the Council has refused to respond to their emails and requests for information since it rejected their claim.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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)
4. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around civil liability are generally best decided by a court where the Council does not accept insurance liability. Only a court can decide whether the problem should have been dealt with by the Council before it caused damage to a person’s property, or if it is liable to pay damages for a person’s loss.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I will not investigate the Council’s refusal of X’s insurance claim. This is because they have an alternative legal remedy, through the courts. Because only the courts can achieve the outcome they are looking for, it is reasonable to expect them to use this remedy.  
8. I will not investigate the Council’s failure to respond to X’s emails since it rejected the claim. This alone has not caused X a significant enough injustice. It remains open for X to submit a Freedom of Information request to the Council to ask it to provide the information they want. X will then have the opportunity to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they are dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is reasonable for them to use their right of appeal to the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman