Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an allegation of damage to his car by a waste collection vehicle. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a council waste collection vehicle may have damaged his car. Mr X wants the Council to pay for the damage. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his complaint.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before issuing a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X alleges a waste collection vehicle may have damaged his car. He is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his complaint and the way officers behaved when they visited his home. The Council says it has viewed the CCTV footage from the waste collection vehicle and denies it caused the damage. The Council says there are differing views about what happened when officers visited Mr X’s home.
6. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about administrative fault. We cannot establish liability in complaints involving damage to property. Claims for damage to property are a matter for the Council’s insurers and, ultimately, for the courts.
7. If the Council’s insurers reject a formal claim from Mr X, it is open to him to make a claim in court. I consider it would be reasonable for him to do so. This is because only the court can decide if the Council is responsible for the damage to Mr X’s car. The court can decide what damages, if any, the Council should pay. These are not decisions the Ombudsman can take.
8. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has handled his complaint. But we will not investigate a council’s complaint handling if we are not going to investigate the substantive issue complained about. Also, without independent witnesses to the discussions that took place in Mr X’s home, we could never say with certainty what happened. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use the legal remedy available to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman