The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council saying the complainant is liable for damage to the pavement outside a property undergoing building works. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision on the matter, and the courts are better placed to decide if the complainant should pay for the repair works.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council invoicing him for repair works to the pavement outside his property, as he does not believe all the works have been undertaken as described in the invoice.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or the issues could reasonably be, or have been, mentioned as part of legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)(8), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I find there is not enough evidence of administrative fault in the way the Council has considered this matter to justify starting an investigation. I understand the Council has inspected the site and spoken to Mr X. This resulted in the invoice amount being reduced slightly, but the Council maintains it carried out repair works to two different sections of the pavement. Mr X says the extent of the works actually done are not the same as what is described in the amended invoice. The Ombudsman has no power to question the Council’s decision/judgement, as there not enough evidence of fault in the way it was reached.
Furthermore, only the courts can decide if an individual or organisation is liable for damage to someone else’s property. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order a party to pay damages. So, if the Council decides to pursue Mr B for the debt, he will have the opportunity to present his case/defence at court. As the court is in the best position to decide the issues Mr B complains about, we will not investigate his complaint for this reason too.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, and it is reasonable to expect him to raise his concerns in court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman