Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that his motorcycle was significantly damaged by a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. This is because it is reasonable for Mr C to pursue his compensation claim by taking the Council to court.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains his motorcycle was significantly damaged after hitting a road defect which the Council had failed to repair. Mr C says the Council’s insurance team wrongly refused his compensation claim and the Council did not accept his complaint about this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

4. I considered information provided by Mr C.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not normally investigate complaints about vehicle damage caused by highway disrepair. This is because in effect such complaints are that an organisation has been negligent.
7. The Council has considered Mr C’s claim for compensation but did not accept the Council is liable for the damage to his motorcycle. Mr C may pursue his claim by taking the Council to court.
8. Deciding whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way at evidence as only the court can to make its findings.
9. The Council has relied on the statutory defence that it could not reasonably have been expected to put right this defect before the incident happened. Only the court can decide if the Council has been negligent and whether the Council is entitled to rely on this statutory defence.
10. Also, we have no powers to order or enforce an award of damages. So, I would usually expect someone in Mr C’s position to seek a remedy in the courts. I do not consider it is unreasonable for Mr C to do this.
11. So, we will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the damage to his motorcycle.
12. The Council’s decision not to accept Mr C’s complaint was in line with the Council’s complaints procedure, which says negligence claims are not considered under this procedure. So, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation solely into Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to take the Council to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman