Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s response to his complaint about the Council’s contractors. This is because it is unlikely we would achieve more for Mr B by investigating his complaint about the vehicle driver’s manoeuvre and Mr B has not suffered significant enough injustice from the remaining part of his complaint to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council responded inadequately to his complaint about the behaviour of an employee of one of its contractors. Mr B told us he could have been seriously hurt or killed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided, his complaint to the Council and the Council’s responses. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us he saw the driver of a council contractor’s vehicle performing a dangerous manoeuvre on the street. Mr B says the driver was going too fast. He told us he was walking on the pavement and so his safety was at risk. He says he then saw the driver park the vehicle and use his telephone while the engine was still running.
6. Mr B says the Council needs to review how drivers use these vehicles.
7. In its initial response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said its contractor had investigated the matter. It said the contractor had confirmed the driver had carried out the manoeuvre in compliance with its procedures and guidance and in conjunction with a reversing assistant. The Council said the contractor had confirmed the vehicle was stationary with the handbrake on when the driver used his telephone. The Council told Mr B, as a precautionary measure, the contractor had reviewed its policy on reversing and the use of mobile phones with the driver and crew to ensure full compliance with it.
8. Mr B took issue with some of the content of the Council’s complaint response so he escalated his complaint. In its final response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had sent the additional information he had provided to its contractor. The Council said the contractor had agreed to ensure the crew received refresher training on reversing procedure. In addition, the contractor would monitor the crew on at least two separate occasions on an unplanned basis to observe them carrying out a reversing procedure.
9. The Council and its contractor have looked into Mr B’s concerns about the manoeuvre he observed and taken action. It is unlikely we would achieve significantly more for Mr B by investigating this part of his complaint.
10. The Council has told Mr B drivers can use their mobile phone when their vehicles are parked. Mr B says this is not right because the engine of the vehicle was running when he saw the driver using the telephone. But the key issue is not just whether the engine was running but whether the vehicle was stationary because it was parked or whether it was stationary because it was a line of traffic or at traffic lights. Drivers can use their mobile phones if they are safely parked. This issue has not caused Mr B significant enough injustice to justify the Ombudsman investigating the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would achieve more for Mr B by investigating his complaint about the vehicle driver’s manoeuvre and he has not suffered significant enough injustice from the remaining part of his complaint to justify our involvement.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman