Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council handled her compensation claim for damage to her vehicle. This is because it would be reasonable to expect Miss X to take the matter to court and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed in assessing her compensation claim when her vehicle sustained damage after hitting a pothole.
2. Miss X said this delay meant she had to pay for the repairs to her vehicle which caused financial strain and distress. She wanted the Council to reimburse her the cost of the repairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X said she made a claim for compensation from the Council after her vehicle hit a pothole and sustained damage. She said the Council delayed in processing her claim which caused emotional and financial strain.
8. The Council responded to Miss X and declined her claim. It provided its rationale for its decision and explained that if Miss X remained uncertain of the decision, she should seek independent legal advice.
9. Only a court can decide whether:
• the Council should have dealt with the problem before it caused Miss X harm;
• Miss X should have taken steps to avoid the harm; or
• the Council is liable to pay damages for any loss.
10. We will not normally investigate any issues relating to a council’s decision to decline a compensation claim. Such complaints are really negligence claims.
    Miss X has not provided any good reason why it would be unreasonable to expect her to use her right to take this matter to court for consideration.
11. Miss X has said her complaint relates only to the Council’s delay in handling her claim, rather than the outcome. However, we would not generally investigate issues relating to how the Council handled a claim if we are not investigating the substantive issue.
12. In any event, the Council’s decision to decline Miss X’s claim would have remained the same regardless of delay. Given that only a court could achieve the remedy that Miss X is seeking, investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for Miss X to take the matter to court, and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman