Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council owned garage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to maintain a hardstanding area outside his rented garage, leading to his vehicle being damaged. Mr Y says the Council has refused to relay the concrete to reduce the gradient over the entrance to the garage from the hardstanding. Mr Y is also concerned about the Council response to his complaint, in which he says the Council has falsified documents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

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. In response to Mr Y’s complaint, the Council carried out a site inspection in November 2024. This concluded that the concrete base of the hardstanding was in a suitable condition and did not require resurfacing or repair. The Council told Mr Y of its conclusions as part of its complaint response. It also explained why work had been completed outside other garages on Mr Y’s road, where the Council did not consider work was necessary outside Mr Y’s garage.
6. Councils are able to make decisions based on their experience and expertise. In this case, the Council has conducted a site visit on two occasions and assessed whether work outside Mr Y’s garage is necessary. Using its expertise it has concluded that it is not necessary and while there is a gradient on the entrance to the garage, this has been in place since the garage was built and is not a breach of safety standards.
7. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. The Council has considered the issue, made relevant enquiries and formed a conclusion based on the outcome of these enquiries, the decision has been made properly. As the decision has been made properly, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
8. Mr Y says his vehicle has been damaged as a result of the lack of maintenance of the hardstanding outside his property, which he says has caused damage to the vehicle.
9. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
10. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as costs for repairs to his vehicle, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman