Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a claim for damage to Mr X’s car. This is because the complainant has an alternative legal remedy, to continue 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. For the rest, there is no worthwhile outcome by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained his car was damaged because Council contractors blocked a road using their car rather than using signage and barriers.
2. Mr X also complained Council contractors were abusive and threatening towards him.
3. Mr X wants the Council to compensate him for the damage to his car and for his time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 Mr X.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We consider our powers on what we could achieve as part of our consideration of whether an alternative remedy exists and whether it is reasonable for a person to use it.
9. 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.
10. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. We cannot decide liability for the damage to Mr X’s car, only the courts can. Therefore, it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court.
11. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of Council contractors. The Ombudsman’s role typically focuses on maladministration or service failure by the council itself rather than direct conduct complaints about third-party contractors. There is therefore no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
12. In any event, Mr X has reported the matter to the police who are responsible for investigating reports of criminality.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to continue his negligence claim in court. For the rest, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman