Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council damaged his car. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr X to make a ‘freedom of information’ request for any video footage of the incident held by the Council and to make a claim against the Council at court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, believes the Council’s refuse collection crew damaged his car. He contacted the Council and it agreed to check its cameras but he did not hear back. He then complained but the Council referred him to its insurers and Mr X says the insurers have ignored his requests to review the footage.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X’s representative, Mr Y, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has asked the Council to review the footage from its cameras because he believes the refuse collection crew are responsible for the damage to his car. The injustice he claims lies in the cost of repairing the damage, which he believes the Council should pay.
8. Mr X clearly has some basis for his belief that the Council is responsible and if he believes the Council should pay it would be reasonable for him to make a claim against it at court. He could also make a claim to his insurer who would then decide whether to pursue the Council.
9. I appreciate Mr X is frustrated by the Council’s failure to respond to him about the video footage but if he believes this is relevant to his claim he may make a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act. If he is unhappy with the Council’s response to his request he should complain to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from the damage to his car and if he believes the Council is responsible for this it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman