Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his claim for damage to his bicycle following a highways pothole accident. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for him to pursue his claim in the courts if the Council denied liability. His claim about bullying and defamation are not sufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complained about the Council handling his claim for damages poorly and he suffered delay and allegations that he may have breached Covid-19 lockdown regulations. He says the officer handling the claim acted in a bullying and intimidatory manner which affected his mental health.

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. 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:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. Mr X has commented on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X suffered damage to his bicycle following an accident involving a pothole on the public highway. He says the claims officer who dealt with his claim to the Council suggested that he may have breached the Covid-19 lockdown regulations in force when his accident took place.
6. Mr X rejected this suggestion and said that this was defamation of his character and that he suffered anxiety following the officer’s bullying actions. He complained to the Council and it apologised for mistaking the times when the incident took place and accepted he had not breached the regulations.
7. Mr X says the apology is insufficient because it does not accept that the Council should not have raised an irrelevant matter and that it amounted to intimidation. The Council told him this was not the case and that anything which could have provided a defence against a legal claim, such as any unlawful activity at the time of the incident was a relevant factor in considering his claim.
8. It was not unreasonable for the Council to consider the conditions under which the claim against it took place. The officer only corresponded with Mr X on the matter and it was not in the public realm where a tort of defamation may have occurred.
9. He says the claim took 3 months to resolve, which is not unusual for an insurance claim of this kind. There is insufficient injustice arising from Mr X’s complaint about bullying which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it was reasonable for him to pursue his claim in the courts if the Council denied liability. His claim about bullying and defamation are not sufficient evidence of fault causing injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman