Summary: Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly dealt with an incident when one of its Contractor’s refuse vehicles damaged her car. The Council has already admitted there was fault because Mrs X’s request for footage from the refuse vehicle was not dealt with in a timely manner, meaning the footage was deleted. The Council has offered Mrs X £25 which is sufficient to remedy the time and trouble this caused her. I will not consider any further injustice concerning Mrs X’s claim that her insurance premiums have increased as a result of the incident. This is because such matters concern claims about legal liability and these can only be determined by insurers or the courts.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council incorrectly handled an incident when a refuse vehicle damaged her car which was parked outside her house. In particular, she says the Council did not respond to her complaint in a timely or appropriate manner.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, the CCTV footage from the vehicle was deleted which affected her insurance dispute and her car insurance premium has gone up.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mrs X and considered her view of her complaint. I also considered the complaints responses from the Council.
7. I gave the Council and Mrs X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and took those comments into account before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council contracts its refuse collection service to a third party contractor (the Contractor).
9. Mrs X used to hire a motability car because her husband was disabled.
10. In December 2018, Mrs X says she noticed two of the Contractor’s refuse vehicles close to her motability car, which was parked on the road outside her property. The following day, Mrs X says she noticed damage to her car’s bonnet. Mrs X said she informed the motability hire company but said she did not inform her insurance company because the damage was minimal and she did not want to make a claim.
11. The warden where Mrs X lives, made a request to the Contractor to investigate the incident as soon as it occurred. The Contractor did not respond and so Mrs X contacted it at the end of December. She heard nothing and so she made a formal complaint to the Council on 23 January 2019.
12. Mrs X then phoned the Council. It said the Contractor told it that the footage from the refuse vehicle had been automatically deleted because more than 28 days had passed since the incident. The Council asked if Mrs X had put in a claim with her insurance company and she said she had not made a claim because she felt the Council should offer her compensation for the damage.
13. The Council responded to Mrs X’s formal complaint on 15 February. It apologised for the Contractor’s failure to respond to her request that the incident was investigated. It informed her the Contractor had passed details of the incident onto its own insurance company.
14. In June 2019, Mrs X complained again to the Council. She said her husband had died and she was having difficulties because the insurance quote from her insurer for her new vehicle had increased. She had been told this was because the Contractor had reported her for colliding with its refuse vehicle. Mrs X disputed the Contractor’s version of events and said her vehicle had been parked at the time. Mrs X said the Contractor was stating she was the party at fault.
15. The Council responded in June 2019. The officer said “I appreciate that you are upset by the letter from the insurance company and the subsequent increase in premium. I regret though I must advise that [the Contractor] does report alleged accidents to their insurers as this is their procedure, which is exactly the same procedure the Council would take”.
16. The response said the Council passed the warden’s request for a copy of the camera footage to the Contractor on the same day it received it and chased a response a number of times. However, the Contractor failed to download the video before it was automatically deleted. The Council said this had caused Mrs X additional time and trouble and offered her £25 to remedy this.
17. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.

My findings

18. Mrs X is unhappy with the delays by the Council’s Contractor and says that as a result, it has affected her case against the Contractor and her premiums have increased.
19. These are not matters the Ombudsman will investigate. Only insurers or the courts can decide liability in claims about damage to property caused by negligence and any injustice flowing from this.
20. The Council has apologised and offered Mrs X £25 for the additional time and trouble she was caused when the footage was delayed. These are sufficient actions to remedy the injustice we can consider.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council has already admitted it was at fault and taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice this caused Mrs X. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman