The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a firm contracted by the Council damaging his wall, and how the Council dealt with his complaint. The core complaint about the wall amounts to a claim of legal liability for damage to his property. It is a matter for an insurer or a court to decide, and it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim in court if required. We do not investigate council complaints processes where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.
The complaint
The Council replaced a lamppost next to PA’s property. Mr X complains: the Council’s contractors knocked loose and damaged a coping stone on his wall during the works; the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint.
Mr X says he is concerned about children playing on the wall with a loose, heavy coping stone there. He wants the Council to re-fix the stone.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s core complaint is one of property damage by the Council’s contractor. He considers the contractor or its employer, the Council, to be liable for the damage to his wall. The Council says the evidence Mr X submitted, including photographs of the wall, is inconclusive. It considers officers cannot say their contractors caused the damage based on that evidence.
This complaint amounts to a claim of liability for personal property damage, which is a legal matter. The Ombudsman cannot decide issues of legal liability; only an insurer or the courts can do so. If he has not done so already, Mr X may wish to make an insurance claim for the damage he believes was caused by the contractor. If the insurer refuses his claim, he can pursue the outcome he seeks in court. It would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim in court because it is the body which is able to decide the disputed core legal issue of liability for the damage. The courts can also make binding and enforceable orders on the parties involved, unlike the Ombudsman who may only make recommendations.
Mr X also says the Council did not properly deal with his complaint. He says officers allowed the contractor to investigate themselves and did not contact him during its investigation. We will not investigate a council’s internal complaint processes in isolation where we are not pursuing the core matter giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources, which are from public funds, for us to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: the core complaint amounts to a claim of legal liability for damage to his property, which is for an insurer or a court to decide; and it would be reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim at court if required; and we do not investigate councils’ complaints processes where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman