Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council demolished a garage he rented in its area without notice. This is because the Council already apologised, refunded part of his rent, and paid him a £50 symbolic payment. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further, and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council demolished a garage he rented from it without notice. Mr X said this caused him frustration and time and trouble to resolve.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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

Background

5. Mr X rented a garage in the Council’s area. In early 2025 Mr X noticed the garaged had been accessed by persons unknown. Mr X removed the car he stored at the garage. Mr X paid approximately £260 to have the vehicle moved. Shortly thereafter the Council demolished the garage. Mr X complained to the Council.
6. In its complaint response the Council apologised for failing to inform Mr X that it had decided to demolish the garage. It explained its contractors had accessed the garage to assess asbestos levels. It refunded Mr X the pro-rata cost of the rental and provided a £50 symbolic payment to acknowledge his frustration and time and trouble.

Analysis

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. The Council apologised, refunded Mr X the pro-rata cost of the rental and provided a symbolic remedy. An investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further, and so we will not investigate.
9. In addition, any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further, and the remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman