Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a refuse lorry causing damage to a kerb and grass verge, and about the Council’s handling of a subsequent telephone call about the matter. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing the complainant a significant injustice, there are other bodies better placed to consider the complainant’s concerns, and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a refuse lorry damaged the grass verge and a kerbstone at the entrance to his road. In addition, he says a council officer refused to give their name, was unprofessional and antagonistic, and threatened to withdraw the existing refuse collection arrangement, during a subsequent telephone call about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. With reference to the second and third bullet points above, we do not start an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
4. And we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. I appreciate Mr X might be unhappy about the condition of the grass verge and kerbstone near his home, and about the way his subsequent telephone conversation with a council officer was handled.
8. But the Council has explained to Mr X why it does not believe it was responsible for the damage to the kerbstone. The Ombudsman cannot determine legal issues such as liability for damage to property; only the courts can do that. So, if Mr X wants a judgement on whether the Council is liable for the damage to the kerbstone, then the courts are better placed to consider the matter. Alternatively, he could report the damage to the highway authority, who can than decide how it wishes to proceed.
9. Furthermore, I do not consider that Mr X has been caused a significant personal injustice by the actual damage to the grass verge or the kerbstone.
10. Nor do I see that the withholding of the officer’s name during the telephone conversation has caused him a significant injustice either. In particular, it did not prevent him from raising a complaint, or prevent the Council from investigating it. If Mr X believes data protection rules have been breached, then it seems reasonable to expect him to pursue the matter with the ICO.
11. Finally, in the absence of a telephone recording or independent witnesses, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to be able to establish with the officer’s general conduct during the telephone call amounted to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing him a significant injustice, there are other bodies better placed to consider his concerns, and an investigation by us is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman