Summary: Mrs A complained about Council’s handling of her personal injury complaint. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs A to take her property damage claim to court.

The complaint

1. Mrs A complained the Council is liable for the repair cost of her car after she drove over a pothole in January 2020. She says that had the Council maintained the road she would not have damaged her car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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. The Courts have said that we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs A. Mrs A had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
6. I considered the Councils responses to Mrs A’s complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. In January Mrs A drove over a pothole and damaged her car.
8. Mrs A contacted the Council and filed a claim for it to cover the cost of the repairs to her car.
9. The Council assessed the claim and denied any responsibility.
10. Mrs A disagrees with how the Council assessed her claim.
11. She says that if the Council had maintained the highway properly, she would not have damaged her car.
12. Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act Mrs A asked the Council disclose information to her.
13. Council provided her with the information she needed under the FOI request.

Assessment

14. The Council told Mrs A it last inspected the road in question in September 2020 and it found no defects for repairs.
15. The Council explained that its statutory duty to have a maintenance schedule for the fabric of the highway.
16. When Mrs A reported the pothole, the Council inspected the road two days after and made an order for it to be repaired within two hours.
17. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider matters of liability for damages.
18. If Mrs A disagrees with the way in which the Council considered her claim it is reasonable for her to take his property damage claim to court.
19. Mrs A has also said that she is not happy with how the Council handled her complaint. The courts have said that if we cannot look at the substantive matter of the complaint, we cannot look at any related actions, which would include how the complaint process was handled.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman will not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mrs A to take her property damage claim to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman