Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s property by refuse collection crews. He has made an insurance claim against the Council for his losses. Where no liability is accepted it is reasonable to challenge the claim in the courts. The Council has apologised for bad language by refuse staff which Mr X reported.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refuse collection crew causing damage to his gatepost during his assisted waste collection service. He also says the crew used profane language and he finds this offensive.

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 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 continue 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))

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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his gatepost was damaged by workers carrying out his assisted waste collection. He sent a claim and CCTV footage to the Council. The Council asked its insurers to consider the claim and it was subsequently rejected. The insurers said there was insufficient evidence of excessive force being used and the gate opened outwards into the public highway which is not permitted.
7. We cannot determine claims about damage to property or personal injury. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around legal torts are generally best decided by a court where no insurance liability is accepted. Only a court can decide whether the problem should have been dealt with by the council before it caused any harm or if the council is liable to pay “damages” for the loss or injury someone has suffered.
8. The Council sent a letter apologising for any offence caused by the language used by its refuse crews. It has reminded the staff that they must be professional on all occasions and refrain from using bad language.
9. 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. In this case I consider an apology is a suitable remedy to the injustice which Mr X has claimed.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to Mr X’s property by refuse collection crews. He has made an insurance claim against the Council for his losses. Where no liability is accepted it is reasonable to challenge the claim in the courts. The Council has apologised for bad language by refuse staff which Mr X reported.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman