Summary: Ms X complained about a member of staff from the Council’s refuse collection team knocking over a tin of paint during a waste collection. We should not consider this complaint as the Council offered a remedy, and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council’s waste collector knocked over a tin of paint when looking in her cupboard for bin bags.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms X provided when she complained.
5. I considered information the Council provided.
6. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms X says in August 2019, a waste collector from the Council knocked over a tin of paint during a waste collection. She says this caused damage and she complained to the Council, asking it to refund the cost of the paint and pay for the damage.
8. The Council passed the complaint to its contractor’s insurers. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman when she did not receive a prompt response. Ms X would have been entitled to apply to the courts about this insurance matter. However, given the possible court costs, it would have been unreasonable for us to expect Ms X to go to court. Therefore, the law says we could consider this complaint as the alternative remedy was not reasonable.
9. Since Ms X complained to the Ombudsman, the contractor’s insurers have offered Ms X £50 to resolve the complaint. It has provided a remedy for any injustice that has been caused, and any investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman