Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council removing unauthorised traffic signs from outside the complainants’ home. Damage to the complainants’ vehicle is a matter for the courts to decide. We are unlikely to find other fault by the Council caused the complainants injustice that warrants our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to here as Mr and Mrs B, have complained about an incident in which the Council removed unauthorised traffic signs from the wall of their home. They say the Council did not give them proper notice so they could remove the signs themselves. As a result, the Council officer caused damage to a vehicle which will cost about £1,000 to repair. Mrs B was also upset by the behaviour of the Council officer who removed the signs. They say the Council has not dealt with other unauthorised signs in the same way.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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’.
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered what Mr and Mrs B said in their complaint and background information provided by the Council. They commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr and Mrs B say they placed ‘no parking’ signs outside their home because the Council had not dealt with traffic problems. The Council did not authorise the signs and I do not consider it was fault that it sought to remove them.
8. Mr and Mrs B say a Council officer forcibly removed the signs and stones from the wall struck their vehicle causing damage which will cost around £1000 to repair.
9. Mr and Mrs B have submitted a claim to the Council for the damage to the vehicle. The Council says it is still considering this.
10. This part pf Mr and Mrs B’s complaint is in effect that the Council has been negligent. Adjudication on questions of negligence usually involves making decisions on contested questions of fact and law which need the more rigorous and structured procedures of civil litigation for their proper determination. In addition, only a court can decide if a council has been negligent and what damages must be paid.
11. We cannot decide whether a council has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. For this reason, we would usually expect someone in Mr and Mrs B’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through their insurers.
12. There is no exceptional reason Mr and Mrs B cannot seek a remedy in court and so we will not investigate a complaint about this.
13. Mr and Mrs B contend the damage would not have happened if the Council had properly served notice on them under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. I consider this is an issue best decided by a court considering a claim for negligence.
14. Mr and Mrs B have raised such as the distress caused to Mrs B by the behaviour of the Council officer at the time. They also say the Council has not dealt with other unauthorised signs in the same way. However, I do not consider any other fault by the Council has caused them injustice that would justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr and Mrs B can seek a remedy for the damage to their vehicle in court. We are unlikely to find evidence of other fault causing them significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman