The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her compensation claim for damage to her boundary wall. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is reasonable for Mrs B to pursue her claim by taking the Council to court.
The complaint
Mrs B complains her boundary wall has been damaged by a Council streetlight and is at risk of collapsing on pedestrians. Mrs B says the Council took too long to respond to her claim for the wall to be re-built and has not accepted responsibility for the damage. Mrs B would like the Council to undertake the required work to the wall.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mrs B.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We do not normally investigate complaints about damage to property. This is because such complaints are about whether an organisation has been negligent.
We take the view the courts are in the best position to decide whether an organisation has been negligent. Also, unlike us, the courts can order a party to pay damages.
The Council’s insurer has indicated to Mrs B that the Council does not accept responsibility for the damage to her wall. Mrs B may want to ask the Council’s insurer to confirm this is the final decision. The next step for Mrs B would then be to take the Council to court.
I find it is reasonable for Mrs B to do this. The initial fees are relatively modest and the courts are in the best position to decide this matter and provide the outcome Mrs B seeks.
Mrs B also complains about the Council’s handling of her compensation claim. Mrs B says the Council’s insurer took four months to decide her claim. Insurance claims can take some time to be investigated and the delay was only one month longer than the insurer’s three month timescale for a decision. So, I find any delay was not excessive.
The Council’s insurer has also apologised to Mrs B for not keeping her updated. This was a suitable response.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered Mrs B’s compensation claim to justify an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.
So, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
For the above reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman