Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council incorrectly disposing of his belongings from a rented garage. His property loss is a matter best determined by a claim to the Council’s insurers, or by the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council incorrectly removed his belongings from a garage he was renting, and disposed of it.
2. Mr X says this caused him loss of personal possessions and wants the Council to reimburse him for the loss.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s responses. I have also considered Mr X’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X was renting a garage from the Council. In 2020 he went to the garage and found the locks had been changed. Mr X contacted the Council. It informed him it had repossessed the garage the previous year due to rent arrears on his account and destroyed his belongings. As Mr X had continued to make payments until his visit to the garage, the Council told him he could claim back the overpaid rent via its website.
7. Mr X complained to the Council. He says he did not know about the possession action as he did not receive its correspondence. He also questioned why the Council continued to take rent payments until he contacted the Council.
8. In response the Council explained it had sent an arrears letter and a Notice to Quit (NTQ) to the address provided by Mr X. It also said it hand delivered the NTC to the garage. As it received no response from Mr X, it repossessed the garage and put his belongings into storage. The Council then sent a Section 41 notice informing Mr X about the deadline to collect his belongings. It stored his belongings for almost 12 months but did not hear from Mr X and so they were destroyed. The Council explained payments had continued as Mr X had a standing order set up via his bank. Only he could cancel the standing order.
9. Mr X has claimed the overpaid rent back from the Council but remained unhappy with its decision. Mr X escalated his complaint and asked for compensation for the loss of his belongings stored in the garage.
10. The Council told Mr X it had followed its policy and did not change its decision. It informed Mr X he could make a claim to his insurer or submit a Public Liability Claim against the Council for compensation. Mr X has confirmed he has made a claim against the Council’s insurers.

Assessment

11. I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate this complaint. Mr X have an appropriate alternative route to get the outcome he seeks, recompense for the lost belongings. The council has invited him to make a claim against its insurers and Mr X has confirmed he had submitted a claim.
12. If Mr X is not satisfied with the outcome of the insurance claim, he can go to court. Whether the Council is responsible to make payment to compensate Mr X for the lost goods are not matters the Ombudsman can decide. Only the courts can determine these matters and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use this right of remedy.
13. Also, the Council has explained why it continued to take payments for the garage after the possession action and Mr X has received his refund. It is therefore unlikely further investigation about this matter would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s disposal of Mr X’s belongings from his rented garage. This is because property loss is a matter best determined by a claim to the council’s insurers, or by the courts.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman