damage to the complainant's home. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.
The complaint is late, but it is also unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. It is also reasonable for the complainant to pursue the matter in court if he believes the Council is liable for the damage.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, says the Council has failed to adequately respond to his concerns that vibrations caused by large vehicles travelling over a nearby speed hump are damaging his home and causing a disturbance. Mr X says the problem has been there since 2013 when he moved into the property.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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
The Ombudsman normally expects people to complain to us within twelve months of them becoming aware of a problem. We look at each complaint individually, and on its merits, considering the circumstances of each case. But we do not exercise discretion to accept a late complaint unless there are good reasons to do so. I do not consider that to be the case here. I see no reason why Mr X could not have complained much earlier and so the exception at paragraph 3 applies to his complaint.
But even if Mr X’s complaint was not late it is unlikely we would investigate. The Council has explained the rationale for traffic calming measures. It visited the site to identify any work needing urgent attention. It agreed to monitor the situation. The Council has also said it will again visit Mr X’s property to inspect the road. It is unlikely we could achieve anything more.
Also, the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about administrative fault. We cannot establish liability in complaints involving damage to property. Claims for damage to property are a matter for the Council’s insurers and, ultimately, for the courts.
If the Council’s insurers rejected a formal claim for damages, then Mr X could take the matter to court. I consider it would be reasonable for him to do so. This is because the Court could decide if the Council has been negligent and is liable for any damage to Mr X’s property. The Court could decide what damages, if any, the Council should pay. The Ombudsman has no powers to make such decisions.
It is therefore reasonable to expect Mr X to pursue a court remedy if the Council does not accept liability for the damage.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint is late, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response, and it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman