Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a highway maintenance claim because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council took too long to consider his claim for damage to his vehicle after he drove over a pothole, before referring him to a third-party contactor to make a claim against them for the damage.
2. Mr Y says he feels frustrated by the Council’s actions and spent time chasing a response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y submitted a claim to the Council in March 2023 for the cost of repairs to his car after he drove in a pothole. He says the Council then referred him to a third-party contractor, who had done work on the road, in November 2023 to make a claim against this company, rather than the Council. Mr Y says he didn’t not receive contact until November, despite several chasing emails about the claim. He approached us in December.

Analysis

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. In this case, while Mr Y has needed to chase for a response and has had his claim against the Council rejected, he is still able to make a claim against the contractor the Council has referred him to. His injustice is therefore the time spent and his frustration in dealing with the matter. While Mr Y may feel strongly, this is not a significant enough injustice to warrant use of public resources to investigate further, as referred to in paragraph three. As he has not suffered a serious loss, for example his inability to make a claim, or harm as a result of any fault there may have been. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman