Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council roadworks contractor causing him to drive into a hedge, the Council blaming him for the incident, and how it dealt with his complaint. There is neither sufficient evidence of fault nor sufficient significant personal injustice to justify us investigating. It would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue any claim of damage to his car through the Council’s insurers and the courts if required. We do not investigate council correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a motorist. He complains:
1. a Council roadworks contractor caused him to drive into a hedge;
2. the Council has wrongly sought to blame him for the incident;
3. has failed to reply to all his correspondence and delayed the matter.
2. Mr X says the incident caused him and his wife Mrs X, who was his passenger, considerable distress. He says his car was scratched by the hedge. He has concerns that the contractor is a danger to others.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. On consideration of the evidence, including Mr X’s dashboard camera footage, we cannot say the incident was wholly or mainly caused by the actions of the Council’s contractor. Furthermore, while the video and other evidence shows the incident causing some annoyance to Mr and Mrs X, it does not show such a level of distress to them which would warrant us investigating. Mr X’s concern about the contractor’s staff member involved being a danger to others is not in itself a sufficiently significant personal injustice to warrant investigation. There is neither enough evidence of fault nor of sufficiently significant injustice to Mr and Mrs X stemming from the matters complained of here to justify an investigation.
7. The other injustice Mr X reports is damage to his car from its impact with the hedge. If he believes the Council is responsible for that damage, that would be a claim of legal liability for property damage. We cannot decide questions of legal liability. Only insurers or the courts can make those decisions. If Mr X wishes to pursue this part of his complaint, he may want to first make a claim on the Council’s insurance. If dissatisfied with the claim’s outcome, it would then be for him to take it to court. It would be reasonable for Mr X to take this route if required because courts can make legal liability decisions and we cannot, and because the courts’ decisions are binding, whereas we can only make recommendations.
8. Mr X also complains about the way the Council corresponded and dealt with his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint‑handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is neither sufficient evidence of fault nor of sufficient significant personal injustice to him or Mrs X stemming from the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• the car damage issue is a claim of legal liability which we cannot determine and it would be reasonable for him to pursue this issue through the Council’s insurers and the courts if required; and
• we do not investigate councils’ correspondence and complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman