Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about road resurfacing works that damaged his car. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to take the Council to court to determine liability for the claimed damage. And we would not investigate the linked concerns about officer conduct and complaint handling when we are not looking at the core complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's management of road resurfacing works at Cannon Street and Bridlington Avenue.
2. Mr X says excessive loose gravel was left on the road surface, causing damage to his vehicle and required several hours of repair and cleaning work.
3. Mr X also complains the Council failed to understand the nature of his complaint and that a Council officer was rude when he attempted to discuss the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s response. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has provided photographs which he says demonstrate the quantity of loose material left on the road and the effect on his vehicle.
9. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint under its complaints procedure but did not uphold it. It said the works were planned maintenance carried out using industry-standard methods and in accordance with relevant standards.
10. We will not investigate. This is because the core issue is Mr X’s claim that the Council's road resurfacing works were carried out negligently, creating a hazard and causing damage to his vehicle. Mr X has identified specific losses, including alleged damage to his vehicle and the time and effort spent carrying out remedial work. He has provided photographs and detailed evidence in support of his claim.
11. Where someone believes a council's actions have caused personal injury, property damage or financial loss through negligence, the courts are best placed to determine liability. A court can consider evidence from both parties, make findings on disputed facts, assess whether the Council breached any duty of care and, if appropriate, award damages. The Ombudsman has no powers to legally determine liability for damage nor compel Councils to pay compensation.
12. We consider it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter in court if he wishes to establish liability for the alleged vehicle damage and associated losses.
13. The concerns about complaint handling and the conduct of officers arise from the substantive dispute about the road works and the alleged damage. We will not be able to separate out these issues as stand-alone complaints when the core complaint is better suited to a court remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to go to court to decide liability for damage and other losses. We will not investigate the complaint handling or officer misconduct separately because they arise from the core complaint which we are not investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman