Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about repayment of charges for storing Mr X’s belongings. Any investigation is unlikely to find enough evidence the Council was at fault, so we would not be likely to recommend what Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has taken more money than he and the Council agreed he should pay for the cost of moving and storing some belongings when he was homeless. He says the Council continuing to take £10 a month causes financial difficulty.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy complaint correspondence from the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In 2017 Mr X was homeless for several months. The Council arranged removal of some of his belongings, storage while Mr X was homeless and delivery to his new address. The total cost was £1,120.80. Mr X says the Council agreed he only had to pay £120 of that amount, which he paid at £10 a month for 12 months. Mr X states he recently realised the Council has been continuing taking £10 a month from his account in the years since he paid the £120 and it intends to keep doing so until the full amount is paid. The Council denies agreeing Mr X need only pay £120. It has produced invoices from 2017 billing Mr X for the whole cost, not just £120. Mr X states he had not seen those invoices until he discovered the ongoing payments and complained to the Council late last year. He says the belongings were not worth as much as the charges the Council is recovering, so he would not have agreed the terms the Council claims.
6. I see no reason to dispute the total cost of moving and storing Mr X’s belongings was £1,120.80. Whether or not Mr X saw those invoices at the time, there is no dispute he agreed to pay the Council something. The question for me is whether any investigation by us now is likely to be able to conclude whether the arrangement was that Mr X only had to pay £120. It is unlikely we would find enough evidence now to say the Council was at fault for an arrangement made in 2017, because:
1. There is no supporting evidence for Mr X’s claim the Council said he only needed to pay £120. If there was an arrangement Mr X only needed to pay a small part of the charges, we would normally expect evidence such as a written agreement or a letter confirming the arrangement.
2. The Council disputes it made, or would have made, such an agreement. It says it would have been unusual for the Council to offer such an agreement.
3. In our wider experience, it is not unusual for councils to pay homeless people’s storage and removal charges and to recover the amount in instalments. In our experience, when a council arranges to accept payment of a debt by instalments, its aim is to recover the full amount, not just a small part of it. So the Council’s statement in this case is consistent with what we would often expect councils to do in such situations.
4. Any attempt now to investigate events so many years ago is unlikely to produce clear enough evidence to enable us to reach a conclusion.
7. Therefore, it is unlikely we could conclude, even on the balance of probabilities, that the Council was at fault for continuing to take payments after the first £120. So it is also unlikely we could recommend what Mr X wants, which is for the Council to repay everything above £120 plus the credit card interest Mr X reports he has paid on the amount.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any investigation is unlikely to find enough evidence the Council was at fault, and we would not be likely to recommend what Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman