Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's handling of an insurance claim for damage as any Council fault did not cause injustice sufficient to justify our further involvement and the complainant had the right to make a claim in court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly investigate her insurance claim after her car was damaged by a pothole. Miss X complains the Council misled her about its liability, failed to properly consider evidence she supplied to it and took a year to finally meet her claim. Miss X seeks an additional payment for the stress and inconvenience she says she was caused by the Council’s handling of the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 fault has not caused a significant injustice to the person who complained (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 provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Background

7. Miss X submitted her claim to the Council in February 2024. In July 2024, the Council rejected it, saying it was not responsible for the land where the damage occurred.
8. Following this, Miss X made her own inquiries with the Land Registry and obtained information which indicated the land was owned by the Council. Miss X resubmitted her claim in January 2025. At first, the Council again rejected the claim, refuting ownership but then on checking again, accepted ownership of the land.
9. The Council settled Miss X's claim in April 2025 and because of Miss X's complaint, changed its procedures by introducing a second tier of claim checking when a claim involves disputed land ownership issues.
10. Miss X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of her claim and would like a monetary payment in recognition of the stress and inconvenience she was caused.

Back to top

My assessment

11. I recognise Miss X’s dissatisfaction with how her claim was handled due to the delay in the matter being resolved and as she was put to some time and trouble in researching the matter herself. However, I do not consider that this represents a level of harm or loss to Miss X that would justify our further involvement. We have limited resources and must direct them to the most serious cases.
12. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that the claim was ultimately paid and the Council recognised it needed to improve its practices and has indicated that it has done so, I do not therefore consider it would be in the public interest for us to investigate this complaint. Another factor which supports this decision, is that Miss X had the right to escalate the matter legally by making a damage claim in court, when the Council initially delayed in responding to her insurance claim or when it rejected it. There is a relatively simple, low cost procedure open to anyone to make such a claim and we would generally consider it reasonable for someone in Miss X's position to take such action.
13. For these reasons, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because she was not caused any serious loss or harm from any Council fault and Miss X could have taken the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman