Summary: Mr X complained about the Council pursuing him for the cost of cleaning up a fuel spillage which he says he was not responsible for. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns a legal matter and only the courts could determine if Mr X was responsible for the charge. The Council has now decided not to pursue the matter further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council pursuing him for a charge of over £500 for cleaning up a fuel spillage in 2018 which it says has been traced to his vehicle. He says he was not responsible, and that the Council has not provided him with any significant evidence that he can be proved to be responsible.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says he received an invoice from the Council in February 2019 for the cost of clearing up a fuel spillage on the highway during the previous August. The Council told him that his vehicle had been identified from a witness, CCTV and corroborated by the Police who obtained owner details from the DVLA.
5. Mr X challenged the Council’s charge and says that his car remained on his drive at the time and was not involved in any accident. He asked for details of the CCTV footage and the Police evidence that his registration had been identified. He says he found that only a partial number had been noted and that his car was not positively identified.
6. The Council maintained that it had sufficient evidence to warrant invoicing him for the cost and that it was prepared to take the matter to court for recovery. The Council has since decided not to pursue the matter further on a without prejudice basis.
7. The Ombudsman has no authority to resolve disputes about legal claims with councils. The Council has treated this as a legal matter and not through its complaints procedure. It says that although it has ended the recovery action this was not because it was unwilling to take the matter to the courts if necessary.
8. The Ombudsman cannot determine who was responsible for the fuel spillage. The Council has a duty in the public interest to recover costs where it can identify someone who is liable. It would be for the courts to test the validity of the Council’s evidence in these circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns a legal matter and only the courts could determine if Mr X was responsible for the charge. The Council has now decided not to pursue the matter further.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman