Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s negligence caused damage to his car. Nor will we investigate his complaint about the refusal to pay compensation for a defective streetlight or a failure to follow its complaints procedure. This is because negligence as this is a matter for the courts. And we do not consider that he has suffered a significant personal injustice on the remaining points which warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Refuses to compensate him for damage he says it caused to his car on two occasions
• Refuses to compensate him for installing a defective streetlight outside his home; and
• Refuses to compensate him for failing to provide any customer service

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. 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’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered
• the information provided by Mr X in his complaint form
• Copies of his emails to the Council; and
• Copies of the Council’s responses to Mr X

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says he suffered two punctures on separate occasions at the same location. He says these were caused by large industrial screws which have come from one of the lorries travelling to and from a site undergoing regeneration work.
7. He asked the Council to refund the cost of putting his car right and compensate him for the loss of the use of his car while it was being repaired. The Council passed his claim to its insurer. The insurer later refused the claim.
8. If Mr X believes the Council has been negligent, he can pursue a claim against it for damages in court. For that reason, his complaint is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
9. I have discretion to investigate the complaint even though Mr X has a legal remedy. However, only a court could determine if the Council has been negligent and what damages must be paid. The Ombudsman has no powers to enforce such an award.
10. In addition, a highway authority has a statutory right under Section 58 of Highways Act 1980 to put forward a defence in court against a damage claim. If the Ombudsman were to investigate, he would be denying the Council its right to defend itself in court against such a claim.
11. For these reasons I will not exercise discretion to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Compensation for a defective streetlight

12. On 30 November Mr X reported a bright white bulb had been installed in the light outside his property and was shining into his home. The Council passed the report to its contractors. And, after getting further information from Mr X, the bulb was replaced on 10 December. Mr X says he asked for compensation but despite chasing, received no further response.
13. In May the Council wrote to Mr X refusing his request for compensation, advising it was satisfied with the contractors’ actions.
14. I understand it may have been disturbing to have a bright light shining into his home. Mr X says this went on for 4 to 6 weeks. However, the Council says its records show the matter was dealt rectified within two weeks of it receiving Mr X’s report. And it considers this to be an acceptable level of service. When receiving a report of a defective streetlight, the Ombudsman expects the Council to establish what the problem is and correct it if necessary. In this case, the matter was resolved within two weeks. I have not seen any evidence on fault by the Council on this point.

Failure to respond to correspondence

15. Mr X says he sent many emails to the Council chasing responses to his requests for compensation about the streetlight and for the damage to his car, but the Council did not respond.
16. The Council says his complaints were acknowledged on receipt and passed to the relevant departments. It has apologised to Mr X that not every email he sent was acknowledged but advised the substantive matters had been.
17. While the Ombudsman expects the Council to respond to correspondence according to its published service standards, I will not investigate this issue further because I do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice solely from the failure of the Council to respond to all his correspondence according to its published service standards. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because;
• The question of negligence is a matter for the Courts and not the Ombudsman.
• I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s report of a defective streetlight.
• I do not consider Mr X suffered a significant personal injustice from the failure of the Council to respond to all his correspondence according to its published service standards, which warrants an investigation. Nor is it a good use of public resources to investigate such matters when we are not considering the substantive matters raised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman