Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay compensation for damage to her car and the way it dealt with her claim. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to resort to court action for the remedy she seeks. The complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s legal remit.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s refusal to pay compensation for damage caused to her car and the way it dealt with her claim. As a result, she has been unable to recover the cost of repairs to her vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 have considered what Mrs X said in her complaint and her comments on the previous draft decision. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Ombudsman cannot determine if the Council is legally liable for the damage caused to Mrs X’s car or whether it should pay compensation. Ultimately, only the courts can do this. There is a low-cost procedure open to anyone to make a money claim through the courts or Mrs X could consider using a ‘no win no fee’ solicitor.
6. For these reasons, it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to resort to court action if she wishes to challenge the decision on her claim. So, her complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay compensation for the costs she incurred is outside our legal remit.
7. The Local Government Act 1974 gives the Ombudsman a very wide discretion to decide which cases he should investigate. Mrs X has asked us to consider separately her complaint about the way the Council dealt with her claim. We do not normally investigate complaints about the way the Council has dealt with a claim if we are not investigating the underlying matter which gave rise to the claim.
8. In this case Mrs X says there was a delay of up to nine months in resolving claims. She says an investigation by the Ombudsman could be good use of public money as it could impact positively on other future complaints and outcomes, so that other members of the public are not adversely affected in the future. Mrs X told us the Council failed to hear her concern adequately because it reached a final decision on her complaint without adequate communication with her to establish the full facts.
9. Mrs X made her claim in March 2019. A few days later she received an email telling her there would be a six to nine-month delay in deciding her claim. The Council says its claims handlers would normally expect to deal with claims within three months. Mrs X’s claim was unsuccessful so she contacted her own insurers. But she then found out she was unable to make a claim on her own vehicle insurance policy because the time limit for making a claim (180 days) had elapsed. In its response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council said claimants are responsible for knowing the terms of their insurance policy.
10. Mrs X wanted to pursue the matter but the Council declined to consider it further. Mrs X says this meant the Council had not fully heard her concerns. She says, when she contacted her insurers, they had told her she would be unable to register a claim with them whilst making a claim to another party. This was because it would have been in breach of the insurance policy’s terms and conditions and potentially fraudulent. So Mrs X argues fault in the Council’s process has directly caused her loss because it prevented her from making a claim against her own insurance policy in time.
11. Mrs X says she has suffered financial loss both as a result of the Council’s decision on her claim and the way the Council dealt with it. The question of whether the Council is liable for the loss Mrs X has described is a legal matter. A court of law is the appropriate body to decide liability, if damages must be paid if the Council has been negligent and to enforce any award of damages. For this reason, we will not investigate separately Mrs X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her claim. It is not unreasonable to expect her to find a way to go to court to seek a remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to resort to court action for the remedy she seeks. The complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s legal remit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman