Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to his insurance claim, and its subsequent handling of his complaint about the delay. This is because the Council has already apologised to Mr X and explained why there was a delay. Also, it is unlikely an investigation would not achieve any worthwhile outcome for him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council delayed responding to his insurance claim following damage to his tyre whilst he was parked near a construction site.
2. He also complains about the way the Council handled his complaint about the delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X was parked near a construction. He said he felt a thud and then felt his trye pressure going down. On investigation, he found that a bolt had pierced one of his tyres and caused it to deflate.
8. Mr X then made an insurance claim to the Council to get reimbursement for the tyre replacement. He made the claim in February 2024. However, the Council did not respond to his claim even after Mr X had sent it several emails to check for progress.
9. Mr X eventually lodged a complaint in March 2025.
10. The Council responded in June 2025 to tell him that it was not liable for the damage to his tyre because the bolt came from a private construction site. The Council gave Mr X the contact details of the construction company and advised him to send his claim there.
11. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X and the reason for this.
12. Mr X lodged a stage two complaint. The Council responded and again apologised for the delay and explained why it took so long to respond. It also said that it would learn lessons from Mr X’s case.
13. Although I note Mr X’s frustration, I am satisfied with the Council’s actions and responses to his complaints as it admitted that it delayed in responding, explained the delay and apologised to Mr X. Furthermore, it is unlikely that an investigation would lead to a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already apologised to him, and an investigation by us would unlikely achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman