Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s contractor incorrectly impounding his car and causing damage to it. The Council has offered appropriate remedies to Mr X for the impounding error, and denied liability for his car damage claim. Investigation would not achieve a different outcome. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue this damage claim in court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s contractor wrongly towed and impounded his car, and while doing so, damaged his car’s suspension. He says the matter has caused him and his family trouble and inconvenience, stress and upset, and financial loss. He wants the Council to pay:
• his £190 travel costs;
• the £850 cost of interim repairs, done to make his car roadworthy;
• a further £2,040 for future work to fully repair his car;
• £500 in compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has offered to reimburse Mr X for the cost of his transport to pick up his incorrectly impounded car. It has also apologised and offered him £200 to recognise the inconvenience caused by the contractor’s error. Mr X’s car was removed and he retrieved it from impound on the same day. While this would have caused Mr X and his family some inconvenience, the Council has offered Mr X a remedy for this part of his complaint. That remedy is in line with the one we would have sought had the Council not already offered it. We would not achieve a different remedy outcome for this part of the complaint which has not already been put forward by the Council, so we will not investigate it.
6. In respect of Mr X’s claim that the Council’s contractors damaged his car, he has the right to make a court claim for the costs he seeks, and we cannot normally investigate when someone can take the matter to court. We can exercise discretion to investigate, but there are no good reasons to do so here. That is because we cannot establish liability in complaints involving property damage. Claims of damage to property are a matter for councils’ insurers and, ultimately, for the courts. Only the courts can now determine if the Council or its contractors are legally liable for the damage caused to Mr X’s car, and if any remedy is due to him. There is a simple, low-cost legal procedure open to anyone to make this kind of claim in court. For these reasons, it is reasonable for Mr X to take court action to pursue the car damage aspect of his complaint, and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the Council has offered appropriate remedies to Mr X for the impounding error and his travel costs, and investigation would not achieve a different outcome; and
• it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim of damage to his car in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman