Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for a claim that Ms X’s belongings were damaged when they were in commercial storage arranged by the Council under its homelessness duty. We cannot determine claims about negligence and the courts are better placed to deal with claims about loss or damage to private property.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s refusal to pay her reasonable compensation for damage to her fridge and other belongings which she says took place whilst they were being stored during her stay in temporary accommodation under the Council’s homelessness duty. She has been offered £200 by the contractor which provided the storage but she says this is insufficient.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says the Council has refused to accept liability for damage to her belongings which she claims was caused while they were in storage provided by a private storage company arranged by the Council in 2023.
6. The Council says that Ms X signed a contract and completed an inventory with the company and it was satisfied that her belongings were no longer at risk of loss once stored. The contractor accepted some liability for damage and offered Ms X £200 compensation. She says this is not enough and wants the Council to compensate her. The Council told her that it will not accept liability, which lies with the storage company. It says there is no evidence that the goods were damaged under the Council’s homeless duty which was discharged in 2024 when she was rehoused.
7. We cannot determine whether her goods were damaged by the storage company or not. If she has sufficient evidence that there was negligence involved she would ned to seek advice about making a claim against the contractor in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to accept liability for a claim that Ms X’s belongings were damaged when they were in commercial storage arranged by the Council under its homelessness duty. We cannot determine claims about negligence and the courts are better placed to deal with claims about loss or damage to private property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman