Monday 19 October: Complaint form offline

The supplier of our case management system has confirmed that they are experiencing a significant technical issue.

At present, we have no access to the case management system and we are currently unable to provide updates on existing cases.

We are planning on the basis that this could continue for a period of time including for the remainder of this week.

If you would like to check if your complaint is ready for the SPSO or enquire about making a new complaint, please complete our Complaint Checker.  

Please be assured we are doing all we can and will provide updates on our website. 

For an all service update: Service update | SPSO

Decision report 201104664

  • Case ref:
    201104664
  • Date:
    October 2012
  • Body:
    Perth and Kinross Council
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    maintenance and repair of roads

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to consider well documented problems with a road when considering his insurance claims for damage to his car. On three occasions Mr C's car had been damaged by potholes and loose chippings on a stretch of the road. The road had been surface dressed by contractors employed by the council in 2010. During the severe weather of winter 2010/2011, the surface dressing had failed. One of the claims was settled, but the council's insurers passed the claim made in April 2011 to the contractor's insurers, who also denied liability and said that the council were responsible for the maintenance of the road. The final claim was made in August 2011 and the council had prepared an internal report which explained that appropriate maintenance inspections and repairs had been carried out at the relevant stretch of road over that time period.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that the council had taken into account the problems with road surface dressing, and had decided that the contractors were liable for this. We do not reach findings in relation to liability or discretionary decisions (decisions that the council were entitled to take). We did, however, criticise the council for leaving motorists in a position that meant they could not claim against either the council or the contractors as both denied liability, particularly as the council accepted there were problems. We suggested that the council as the local authority may wish to address that situation. We also found that although the August 2011 claim was dealt with appropriately, the April 2011 claim was not, because the council did not prepare an internal report. We made a recommendation in relation to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

  • reconsider Mr C's April 2011 claim.

 

Updated: March 13, 2018