Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council determined who owned two storage containers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and because the courts are better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X, who is involved in running a charity, complains that the Council has failed to ensure that another community group return a storage container that is owned by his charity.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We previously considered a complaint from Mr X and found that the Council had failed to keep a clear record of which group it had gifted the containers to. The Council agreed to review who it had given the containers to.
8. The Council subsequently asked both groups to provide any information they had about ownership of the containers. The Council then considered the information and sought legal advice. It subsequently wrote to both groups to say that there was insufficient evidence to determine ownership and therefore the group should receive one container each. The Council said if either group disagreed then they should pursue a civil case.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision regarding ownership. It considered relevant information and fully explained its reasoning to Mr X.
10. I will not investigate the issue of who owns the container, the refusal by the other group to return it to Mr X’s charity or the Council’s failure to assist in this regard. This is because it is a matter best considered by the courts, who are better placed to intervene about disputes over ownership of property.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and because the courts are better placed to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman