Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation of Ms D’s complaint about Council officers visiting premises the charity she works for rents and opening bags and boxes stored on behalf of customers. This complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the charity can pursue a remedy for trespass and interference with goods through the courts.

The complaint

1. Ms D complains Council officers visited premises the charity she works for rents on 4 occasions between October 2018 and July 2019, opening bags and boxes stored on behalf of other charities and those on low incomes; as a result, the charity lost customers and income when they discovered their bags and boxes had been opened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information Ms D sent, and the notes I made of the telephone conversations I had with her and her colleague, Mr E.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms D is a trustee of the charity and Mr E is its secretary. The charity provides cheap storage for people on low income. Belongings are kept at secure premises. Mr E explained there is ongoing court action with the Council about unpaid business rates (non-domestic rates). The charity rejects the Council’s decision that it does not qualify for charitable rate relief. The relief would have entitled the charity to 80% relief from business rates with the Council having discretion about giving relief of up to the remaining 20%.
6. Mr E told me Council valuation officers visited the premises on 4 separate occasions between October 2018 and July 2019 as part of these proceedings. Neither he nor Ms D were present on any visit. During them, he says officers opened customers’ bags and boxes, inspected their contents, and took photographs. The charity only became aware of these actions in November 2019 when, during court proceedings against it, the Council filed a statement. The statement, a copy of which I have not seen, contained details of these visits and photographs showing officers opening and inspecting the contents of boxes and bags. Mr E believes the Council opened between 10-15 boxes.
7. Mr E explained its customers can access their belongings. Before it became aware of the Council officer visits, the charity began to get complaints from customers who claimed their bags and boxes had been opened. Some claimed items were missing. As a result, customers began to cancel contracts they had with the charity and moved their belongings from its premises. Mr E says the Council’s actions meant it lost income. He argues officers did not have the legal authority to enter its premises without its knowledge and consent.

Analysis

8. Mr E complains officers:

• Trespassed when they entered the premises;
• Had no legal authority to do so;
• Interfered with customers bags and boxes; and
• Their actions caused the charity a financial loss as customers no longer trusted it to store their goods securely and safely.

9. I am satisfied the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint further for the following reasons:
1. Mr E complains the officers trespassed when they entered the premises. Trespass is entering land without consent. It is mainly a civil wrong known as a tort. It can also be a criminal offence if, for example, the trespass includes threats of violence or criminal damage. The courts can provide a remedy. Courts can award compensation or damages where the trespass causes financial loss, for example. As the charity can seek a remedy through the courts, this complaint is not within our jurisdiction.
2. Mr E also complains officers entered the premises unlawfully, as they had no legal authority to enter. I consider this is covered above about trespass.
3. Mr E complains officers interfered with customers’ belongings. The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 defines wrongful interference with goods as trespass to goods, negligence where it relates to damage to goods, and any other tort causing damage to goods. The charity can seek a remedy through the courts for wrongful interference with goods which means this complaint is also not within our jurisdiction.
4. Mr E says the charity lost income because of the Council’s actions. The Ombudsman cannot remedy this claimed injustice because the complaint is not within our jurisdiction.
5. While the Ombudsman has discretion to investigate complaints where there is a legal remedy, I saw nothing that persuaded me to exercise it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman discontinued the investigation of the complaint made by Ms D, against the Council as it is not within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman