The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s highways wastes taxpayers’ money, fails to deal with routine maintenance, and gave dishonest information to refute his claim for damage to his vehicle. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants and he can reasonably use his legal remedy if he wants to pursue a claim of damage.
The complaint
Complaint 1: Mr X complains the Council’s highways are not achieving value for taxpayers’ money in how they maintain the highways. He says it is common throughout his town and in the country that there is a lack of routine maintenance or work is not done as claimed. He says there are numerous repairs at the same location. Mr X says the Council should introduce effective audits of works.
Complaint 2: Mr X complains the Council’s highways dishonestly sent false information to solicitors dealing with his recent claim for vehicle damage. Mr X says the information was intended to undermine his genuine claim. He has lost confidence in the Council.
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: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended) 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 have considered Mr X’s information and comments.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: Complaint 1: The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. The first complaint does not cause Mr X sufficient injustice to investigate.
We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. To some extent the handling of highway repairs reflects the limits on highways budgets. Mr X can raise his concerns with his local councillors.
We cannot lawfully investigate a complaint that the Council is wasting taxpayers’ money or not making best use of it (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above).
Complaint 2: This complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X has a legal remedy at court if the Council rejected his claim of damage to his vehicle (paragraphs 4 and 6).
I consider it reasonable for Mr X to use his legal remedy because the court has the power to determine the claim and award damages.
If Mr X does not wish to go to court, he can reasonably be expected to cover the cost of repair or claim on his insurance.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s highways wastes taxpayers money, fails to deal with routine maintenance, and gave dishonest information to refute his claim for damage to a vehicle. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants and he can reasonably use his legal remedy if he wants to pursue a claim of damage.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman