Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has dealt with the complainant’s enquiries about an insurance claim. The Council has recognised the initial responses to Mr X’s concerns fell short of its expected standards and has apologised. We consider that further investigation on this point will not lead to a different outcome. Also, Mr X can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office with his concerns about access to information. Finally, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for damages. So we consider it reasonable for Mr X to contact the relevant insurer about damages to his car and if that fails to pursue the claim in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed:
• to respond to his requests for information
• to respond to his insurer’s correspondence; and
• to respond to his complaint.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
 

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s complaint relates to an incident involving a waste/refuse vehicle belonging to the Council’s waste services contractor and Mr X’s car.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about delays in providing him with information for his insurance claim after damage to his car in May 2023.
9. The Council has acknowledged the initial responses to Mr X’s concerns fell short of its expected standards and has apologised for this. It has also reminded officers of what it outside the scope of the complaint procedure, such as insurance claims. We consider this is an appropriate remedy to this part of the complaint and further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
10. If Mr X considers the Council is withholding information that he is entitled to receive, it is reasonable to expect him to contact the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO). The ICO was set up to consider complaints about access to information held by public bodies.
11. Finally, the issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint is a claim for damage to his property. This is matter for the contractor’s insurer. If the claim is refused it is open to Mr X to ask the courts to consider as the Ombudsman cannot determine liability.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman