Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about damage to his property when the police forced entry to his home after his fall pendant set off an alert and he could not be contacted. This is because the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for the claimed injustice by offering to pay for the damage to his door and inviting Mr X to provide evidence to support the other parts of his claim so its insurers can consider it.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains his property was damaged when the police forced entry to his home after his call pendant set off an alert whilst he was in hospital.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In April 2022, whilst Mr X was in hospital, the police forced entry to his property after his fall pendant set off an alert and all attempts by the Council to contact him were unsuccessful. This caused damage to Mr X’s property. Mr X complained his door was damaged and there was lots of dust and splinters on his carpet which impacted his recovery after having surgery. Mr X says the police walked around his private space, which he uses to pray, in dirty shoes. Mr X complained to the Council and submitted a claim for damages.
7. The Council’s insurers declined Mr X’s claim. It denied negligence as it said it followed its procedure in contacting the police in cases such as this where a customer cannot be contacted. However, as a remedy to his complaint, the Council offered to pay for the damage to Mr X’s door and doorframe as a gesture of good will. It asked Mr X to provide a copy of the invoice for the works along with his bank details so that it could arrange payment.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint that his carpets were damaged and about the impact on his health, the Council invited Mr X to provide evidence to support these points so that it can be considered by its insurers.
9. Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint and its explanation of what happened and what caused the alert. Mr X believes the Council is lying. He would like the Council to provide a copy of the police report so that he can determine who is responsible for the damage and he would like the Council to pay for the damage.
10. In response to our initial enquiries, the Council confirmed it has not yet received from Mr X a copy of the invoice for the door repairs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council has already taken action to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused here by offering to pay for the damage to his door and inviting Mr X to provide evidence in relation to the other claimed damages. There is nothing further an investigation by this office would add.
12. If Mr X remains dissatisfied with the outcome of any further claim it would be open to him to make a claim for damages in the courts. We are not able to decide a negligence claim as negligence is a legal matter only the courts can decide.
13. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X still has unanswered questions about the event, as a publicly funded body we must be careful about how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate assessments and decide complaints where we consider, as in this case, we have enough information to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the Council did. As I consider the Council has taken suitable action to remedy the injustice caused here on the information it has received from Mr X to date it is not a matter we will investigate.
14. It is open to Mr X to make a direct request to the police for a copy of any records it has of the event or to complain about its actions. We cannot consider the actions of the police as it is not a body within our jurisdiction.
15. If Mr X provides the Council with the invoice for the door repairs along with his bank details it will be able to arrange the promised payment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman