Summary: Ms D complains the Council damaged her possessions when moving them. It had made her sign a waiver under duress. It offered her a payment for the damage, but it did not accept liability. Our decision is the offer of payment is a suitable way of resolving the complaint and, so, does not leave enough personal injustice to warrant further investigation. But we find fault with the wording of the Council’s “removal and pre-storage disclaimer. The Council has agreed to amend the wording of that document.

The complaint

1. My summary of the complainant’s (Ms D) complaint is that the Council:

• damaged her possessions when it moved them from one storage unit to another;
• made her sign a waiver under duress which removed the Council’s liability for any damage;
• offered her the £100 costs of the damage, but did not accept liability.

2. Ms D says she did not accept the Council’s offer as she wanted it to accept liability, which is why she complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Before deciding whether we would investigate this complaint, I needed to consider whether Ms D should use her legal remedy via a claim for damages in the county court (see paragraph 4).
7. My decision is it is not reasonable for Mrs D to take legal action against the Council because she:

• tells us that she has experienced mental ill-heath as the result of an ongoing court case about a different matter. She says that makes it very difficult for her to pursue matters;
• says the damage is about £100. So, the cost and effort of court action would be disproportionate.

8. Therefore, it is more proportionate for the complaint to be investigated using the resources and powers of the Ombudsman. But the extent of our powers means it is unlikely we could reach a view about who was responsible for the damage. I have explained this to Ms D and she says, in that case, she would be willing to accept the Council’s offer. But by the time of her complaint to the Ombudsman it had withdrawn it.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. The Council and Ms D had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness – protection of property

11. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must “…take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the property or prevent or mitigate damage to it”. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

What happened

12. The Council had stored Ms D’s belongings after it had accepted a homeless duty towards her. In the early part of 2025, it wrote to her because its agreement with the storage facility was coming to an end. So it needed to find somewhere else to store Ms D’s belongings.
13. Ms D contacted the Council and later signed a “Removal and pre-storage disclaimer” which said:

“…I acknowledge the Council cannot be held responsible for loss or damage to my possessions during transport of when in storage.

…I agree to the abovementioned terms and conditions and waiver all rights to make a claim for damages and fully understand that my possessions will be secured at my own risk and not insured by the storage provider”.

14. During the move, Ms D noted a mirror had cracked. She asked the Council’s officer for a picture of the cracked mirror. The Council responded providing a photograph and advising her of its disclaimer’s terms and conditions. It noted that, while it would continue to provide protection of her belongings in line with its duties, it was not responsible for loss or damage of belongings during storage or transport.
15. The following month Ms D wrote to the Council complaining about the damage to her property. She sought compensation for the cracked mirror. She advised:
• she had signed the waiver under duress, as she had no choice;
• her belief was the mirror was damaged in transit, as the removal people would have noted it on loading it, if it was already damaged. She noted this had happened with a different piece of furniture.
16. The Council’s first complaint response noted:
• it did not agree the mirror was damaged during the move; and
• Ms D had signed a disclaimer.
17. Later the Council emailed Ms D saying it would like to try to reach an amicable agreement before her complaint progressed to the second stage of its complaint procedure. It offered her £100 to cover the damage to her property. The Council says Ms D did not reply to that email so it escalated her complaint.
18. The Council’s stage two complaint response:
• advised there was no conclusive evidence to determine when or how the damage occurred. And due to the lack of evidence, it could not make a definitive judgment on this part of the complaint; but
• as a gesture of goodwill, it would arrange to make the £100 payment to Ms D’s account on confirmation of her acceptance; and
• it had also recommended enhanced sign off procedures.
19. Ms D said she decided not to accept the Council’s offer, as she wanted it to accept liability for the damage. So she complained to the Ombudsman.
20. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised:
• it confirmed its stage two complaint response – that it was not possible to determine how the damaged happened;
• its disclaimer was its way of showing it did not provide insurance. But it assessed each allegation of damage on its merits;
• it continued to offer Ms D free storage and was happy to put forward again the payment to her.

Analysis

21. The Council has agreed to reinstate its offer to Ms D, which is a suitable resolution to the issue for her.
22. I find fault with the Council’s disclaimer. I accept it is entitled to warn people that it does not provide insurance. But for transparency, the disclaimer should have had acknowledgment of the Council’s duty to take reasonable care of possessions.

Back to top

Action

23. I recommended the Council should review the wording of its removal and pre-storage disclaimer to include information of its duties to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the property or prevent or mitigate damage to it.
24. The Council has agreed to this recommendation and has already taken steps to change the wording on its document.
25. The Council has also agreed to pay the £100 to Ms D.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault not causing an injustice to Ms D. The Council has agreed to our recommendation for a service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman