The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance in his area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for him to submit a claim for any personal injury which he sustains as a result of negligence by the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the lack of signs preventing cycling on the pavement. He also says there are uneven pavements in his area which caused him to trip and says householders have constructed an unauthorised vehicle crossing.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he suffered a fall when a cyclist approached him o the pavement. He stumbled on an uneven surface and said he could have been injured seriously. He complained to the Council and said he has complained about pavement surfaces for several years and that the area should have no cycling signs to deter this activity. The Council told him that the pavement is not a designated cycling area and cyclists do not require signs on pavements to tell them that they are committing an offence.
The Council says that it inspects the pavement in the area reported every 6 months and that no actionable defects have been reported in the past. Mr X wants it to meet him on site, but the Council says it does not need to do so.
Mr X also reported a property where the householder has constructed an unauthorised vehicle crossing over the footway. The Council asked him to provide the location of the picture he sent so that it can investigate further.
We do not investigate complaints about personal injury incidents on uneven pavements or pot-hole damage to vehicles. These are civil torts and any claim for damages arising from negligence is a matter which can only be determined by insurers, or the courts where liability is denied. It was reasonable for Mr X to submit a claim against the Council if he believes he suffered injury as a result of any negligence on its part.
There is insufficient evidence of any fault by the Council in the responses it has made to his other claims about highway matters.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance in his area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. It is reasonable for him to submit a claim for any personal injury which he sustains as a result of negligence by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman