Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a report made by a third party against Mr X in relation to a highways matter. This is because the injustice Mr X claims stems from an injury suffered by his wife and only the courts could hold the Council responsible for this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council investigated a report made against him by a third party without notifying him. Mr X is a wheelchair user and says the Council visited his property and moved items he had placed on his land without his knowledge. His wife (Mrs X) subsequently moved them back but Mr X says this caused her an injury which meant she was unable to fully support him for several days

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council says it wrote to Mr X about the report but accepts it could have contacted him directly to discuss the matter. It also suggests it may not have been necessary to move the items and has confirmed it does not intend to take any further action now that Mrs X has put them back.
10. But we cannot say the Council is responsible for Mrs X’s injury or, therefore, the injustice Mr X claims. If Mr and Mrs X wish to pursue this point they may wish to seek legal advice about making a claim against the Council at court.
11. Mr X remains unhappy the Council has not confirmed in writing that the items may stay in their current location but this is, in essence, what it has said in its letter to him. The fact it has used different wording than Mr X wants does not cause him significant injustice and regardless of the wording used, the Council is not barred from further consideration of the point in the event it receives new information or decides the situation has changed.
12. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his ‘freedom of information’ request but the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to decide whether the Council has complied with its legal obligations and to direct the Council to release further information if it has not.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot hold the Council responsible for the injustice Mr X claims, which results from the injury suffered by Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman