Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a car being stolen from a rented garage. This is because part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice so there is no good reason to investigate that part now. It would be reasonable to allow the Council’s insurance department to investigate and if unsatisfied, to pursue the loss of the car through the courts and, complain to the ICO about the Council not providing him with information.

The complaint

1. Mr D complains that:
• The Council downgraded security at the site where he rented a garage by changing the garage doors from wooden to steel and removing the CCTV.
• The Council want him to complete an insurance claim form for it to investigate and decide any compensation for the theft of his car at the site and the enquiry will not be independent.
• He made a freedom of information request to the Council about the security changes and has not received a response.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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. 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

I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I have considered Mr D’s comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr D rents a garage from the Council where he stored a vehicle and other personal effects. Between 2017 and 2018 the Council changed the garage doors at the site to a steel construction and removed the CCTV to another area. Mr D says these actions reduced security at the site.
6. Mr D says the Council should not have removed the security lights or changed the garage doors in 2017. He says the new doors had inadequate security. This element of the complaint is late and there is no good reason for the Ombudsman to disapply the law and investigate matters Mr D knew about in 2017. In any event it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault causing injustice with how the Council made changes at the site. The Council is able to change garage doors as it sees fit and can move CCTV to where it needs to.
7. Mr D complained to the Council in July 2020 that his car had been stolen from the garage and says this was because of the downgraded security at the site. The Council asked Mr D to complete a claim form so its insurance department can investigate. Mr D says there should be an independent investigation and decided not to complete the form.
8. Mr D has not allowed the Council to investigate and decide whether to compensate him for the stolen car and the effect on his mental health. Mr D should ask the Council to consider his claim for compensation, and if he is unhappy with the outcome it would be reasonable for him to take the matter to Court. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability, only a court can do this.
9. Mr D sent a Freedom of Information request to the Council about the security changes at the site but says he has not had a response with the details sought. Complaints about Freedom of Information Act requests should be sent to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). The ICO can decide whether the Council should provide Mr D with the information he wants.

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint as part of the complaint is late and it is unlikely we would find fault causing injustice with the Council’s actions, so there is no good reason to investigate now. It would be reasonable for Mr D to complete the Council’s request to allow its insurance department to investigate the loss of his car and if unsatisfied, this can be pursued through the courts. Mr D can complain to the ICO about the Council not providing him with information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman