Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about re-imbursement for veterinary expenses. 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 complained the Council was negligent, because it left a gas structure temporarily opened and without adequate signage. X said because of the Council’s actions, their pet sustained a serious injury, resulting in veterinary expense of over £300.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 an incident occurred, or if it is liable to pay damages for a person’s financial loss.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

5. We will not investigate X’s complaint because they have an alternative legal remedy, through the courts and because only the courts can achieve the outcome they are looking for, it is reasonable to expect them to use this remedy.  

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman