Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s investigation into an abandoned motorcycle she reported. This is because Ms B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of an investigation into an abandoned motorcycle in her neighbourhood which she reported. Ms B says the Council delayed investigating, and when it did investigate it gave her updates which were incomplete or inaccurate, and later failed to confirm that the motorcycle had been moved.
2. Ms B also complains the Council closed the case without taking relevant factors into account, and the Council’s final response to her complaint contained contradictory information.
3. Ms B says the Council’s mishandling of this investigation has caused her frustration, concern, and a sense of being ignored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms B.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation.
8. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. Ms B reported this motorcycle to the Council in late November 2025. By late January 2026 the motorcycle had been moved from the footway to a parking bay. The Council decided this motorcycle was not abandoned and closed the case.
10. I find Ms B has not suffered a significant or serious injustice – either because of the Council’s handling of this investigation or its decision to close the case – which would justify public money being spent on an investigation by the Ombudsman.
11. The presence of this motorcycle, on either the footway for a relatively short period or in the parking bay, has not directly affected Ms B in a significant way. And, an investigation solely into the Council’s correspondence with Ms B on this issue is not justified.
12. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because she has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman