Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to accept liability for property damage caused by its contractor. This is because it is reasonable for the complainant to challenge the decision on liability in the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to accept liability for damage caused to his property by its contractor. He said the Council’s insurer denied his claim, citing the Council was not liable for damages by third party contractors.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him avoidable distress and financial loss. He wants the Council to liaise with the contractor directly and make a claim on his behalf for the damages. Failing that, he wants the Council to directly pay for the damages to his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s complaint is a dispute over liability against the Council and its contractor. Following a court order, the Council secured Mr X’s property after evicting his tenants. Mr X says the contractor caused damage to his property during the process and he believes the Council and its contractor should be held liable. Claims of liability for damages are legal matters. We cannot resolve this dispute between Mr X and the Council by deciding the liability issues the complaint raises. These are legal matters only insurers and the courts can decide.
8. After receiving Mr X’s complaint, the Council referred the claim to its insurers, who rejected it, stating the Council had not breached any legal duty. As a result, any legal issues raised here need to be resolved in court. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim at court because it is the only body which would be able to decide the liability issues. It would also not be unreasonable for him to go to court because he wants the Council or its contractor to be required to pay for damage to his property. We may only make recommendations to councils, but courts can make binding and enforceable rulings.
9. Alternatively, if Mr X has not already done so, he may wish to pursue his claim with the contractor’s insurers directly.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no good reason why we cannot expect Mr X to challenge this liability dispute in the County Court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman