Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s refuse van damaged the complainant’s car. This is because it is a matter for insurers or the courts. We will use our discretion not to investigate the complaint about the Council’s complaint handling.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council’s refuse van damaged his car. He complains the Council will not take responsibility for its refuse contractor and he complains about the Council’s complaint handling. Mr X wants compensation of £3000 to cover the damage, his time, and the impact on his wellbeing.

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 an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X contacted the Council to report that a refuse van, operated by the Council’s contractor, had damaged his car. The Council treated this as a service enquiry. The contractor initially found no record of a van being in the area. The Council says Mr X did not initially provide his car registration or the precise location of the alleged incident. Following a complaint from Mr X, the Council asked the contractor to review the case; the contractor found that a van might have been in the area at the time. The Council and the contractor asked Mr X to make a claim on the contractor’s insurers. Mr X has made a claim.
6. Mr X says the Council should take responsibility for the contractor’s actions. He complains of the complaint handling and wants an investigation, apology and £3000 from the Council.
7. We do not investigate claims for damage as that is a matter for insurers or the courts. We do not have the expertise to determine whether an incident occurred and whether there was negligence and if damages are due. It is for insurers or the courts to determine liability and to assess the value of any damages that may be due. If Mr X disagrees with the insurer’s decision he can consider taking legal action. We would not start an investigation, regardless of whether it was the contractor or the Council handling the matter because, in both cases, it is for others to determine.
8. We do not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter. That said, I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation. The Council has ultimate responsibility for its contractors but, as I have said, it makes no difference which organisation refers the case to its insurers. In addition, the Council asked the contractor to review the case, explained the situation to Mr X, and said it would change its procedures as to whether it should treat correspondence as a service request or a complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is matter for insurers and because there is nothing to indicate we need to investigate the complaint handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman