The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage to Mr X’s car rims and tyres. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to approach the court with his claim.
The complaint
Mr X says a pothole on a road maintained by the Council caused damage to his car rims and tyres and he had to pay for repairs and replacement tyres. He would like the Council to reimburse him.
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 provided by Mr X.
I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain roads. The Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways and carry out repairs where necessary. But, the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
In terms of Mr X’s claim to cover his repair costs, we would normally expect him to pursue this via the courts. This is because it is essentially a negligence claim, and only the courts can decide if the Council is liable for any damage arising. Further, the courts would have the power to award damages against the Council. The Ombudsman has no such power to enforce an award of damages.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to use the court remedy available to him.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman