Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missing parcel. Mr X can reasonably take court action. Also, any investigation by us would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view of the events.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not taken responsibility for the loss of a parcel addressed to him. He lives in Council-arranged hostel accommodation. The parcel contained a camera worth £325. Mr X states this has caused financial loss and affected his anxiety and depression.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In the absence of resolution through, for example, an insurance claim, the courts can consider whether negligence (such as losing the parcel or giving it mistakenly to someone else) or other fault by the Council with the parcel caused Mr X financial loss. So the restriction in paragraph 2 applies to this complaint.
7. Liability for negligence is not necessarily straightforward legally. Mr X also suggests the parcel might have been stolen. The Council’s liability for someone committing theft is also not legally straightforward. Therefore it is more suitable for the courts than the Ombudsman to consider those points. Where there are different versions of what happened, the court can take evidence on oath, which the Ombudsman cannot. Making a court claim for £325 would cost £50. I do not consider that cost would make it unreasonable to expect Mr X to take court action. I note Mr X’s anxiety and depression but those points to not necessarily make it unreasonable for him to take court action. A court claim for a sum this size need not necessarily be complex. For these reasons, I consider it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to go to court in the absence of agreement with the Council.
8. Even if the points above did not apply, it is unlikely any investigation by the Ombudsman could reach a clear enough view, on balance, about whether the Council was responsible for the parcel’s loss. I note the Council says hostel residents were advised to arrange directly with the sorting office for collection of valuable items. We would be unlikely to resolve the disputed versions of: what the CCTV footage showed (it is no longer available); whether hostel staff, rather than someone else, signed for the parcel (the Council states the staff did not sign for parcels and says the signatures on the Royal Mail delivery confirmation are not theirs); whether Mr X collected this parcel or different parcels; and whether other residents, not just Mr X, were collecting parcels around the same time.
9. The possible theft of the parcel is a matter for the police, not the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would be reasonable to expect him to take court action. Also, any investigation by us would be unlikely to reach a clear enough view of the events.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman