City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (24 014 959)

Category : Environment and regulation > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 25 Nov 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that his car got a puncture because the Council failed to look after a waste and recycling site. This is because the courts are in the best position to decide property damage claims and Mr B has not suffered a serious injustice which would justify our involvement.

The complaint

  1. Mr B says his car got a puncture because the Council did not remove a screw from the parking area at a waste and recycling centre. Mr B would like the Council to reimburse his £26 repair costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an investigation if we decide:
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

  1. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by Mr B.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. We will not investigate this complaint.
  2. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints of administrative fault.
  3. Property damage claims, which are about whether an organisation has been negligent, are best decided by an organisation’s insurers and if needed, the courts.
  4. Also, Mr B’s repair costs were modest. So, Mr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify public money being spent on an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. For the above reasons we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings