Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a highways matter. This is because another body is better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council removed his vehicle when it was parked legally, causing damage to the vehicle and in his view, stealing it. He also complained that the Council will now not provide him with the identity of the civil enforcement officer involved so he can prosecute them directly.
2. Mr Y says he has been very upset and has financially struggled due to needing to pay for repairs to his vehicle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y says his vehicle was stolen or moved from where he parked it in February 2022. Mr Y says damage was caused to the vehicle during the process. He complained to the Council in March. The Council offered £100 to remedy the upset caused and apologised for towing Mr Y’s vehicle. It said that it was unable, due to data protection laws, to provide Mr Y with details of the Council’s enforcement officer. It also referred to an earlier response relating to an Freedom of Information (FOI) request about the same queries, which it had given earlier in May. Mr Y then referred his complaint to us in February 2023.

Analysis

7. Mr Y says his vehicle was damaged in the process of his vehicle being moved and he then had to pay for repairs.
8. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts. The courts are therefore better placed than us to consider the complaint.
9. Mr Y has also made a FOI request for information from the Council, and requested information which the Council says it cannot provide under data protection rules.
10. The Information Commissioner (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It promotes openness by public bodies and protects the privacy of individuals. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes disclosing information in error.
11. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection or freedom of information, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. I consider that to be the case here and Mr Y should therefore approach the ICO about his concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y ’s complaint because another body is better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman