The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained contractors working on behalf of the Council to install a dropped kerb at his property, wrongly used a skip at his property for the rubble when the contract required the rubble to be disposed of elsewhere. Mr X says the contractors did not remove all the rubble and so he was not able to fully utilise his skip. We have discontinued the investigation as it is not possible to take a view on whether a significant amount of rubble was left in the skip and further investigation is unlikely to clarify this.
The complaint
Mr X complains contractors working on behalf of the Council to install a dropped kerb at his property, wrongly used a skip at his property for the rubble when the contract required the rubble to be disposed of elsewhere.
Mr X says the Council charged for a service it did not provide and he was inconvenienced.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; considered information and comments provided by the Council; and sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.
What I found
Mr X entered into a contract with the Council for it to provide a dropped kerb at his property. The works were carried out by contractors on behalf of the Council. Mr X paid £671.66 for the construction costs which included the removal of any waste materials from the property.
Mr X says that he had a skip delivered to his property on 24 May 2022 for his use, separate from the construction of the dropped kerb. Mr X says that he witnessed two contractors putting waste from the construction of the dropped kerb into his skip. Following contact from Mr X, the contractors instructed their workers to remove the waste from Mr X’s skip. Mr X says this was only partially actioned.
Mr X entered into correspondence with the contractors seeking financial reimbursement of the full cost of the skip hire. The contractor refused Mr X’s claim stating that it removed the majority of the rubble apart from a small amount of sand.
Mr X complained to the Council about the situation. He said the actions of the contractors was illegal and he was considering reporting the matter to the police. He asked the Council to provide a financial remedy to include the full cost of the skip hire, a refund of part of the cost of the dropped kerb and compensation for his inconvenience. The Council takes the view the matter should be dealt with by the contractors’ insurers.
Mr X says the failure of the contractors to remove all the rubbish from the skip meant he was unable to utilise it fully and there is a pile of rubbish left at his property that he was unable to put into the skip.
Analysis This complaint relates to the actions of contractors carrying out work at Mr X’s property. The contract for the construction of the dropped kerb was between Mr X and the Council and so while the contractors are not directly employed by the Council, the works they carried out were done so on behalf the Council. I will therefore treat the actions of the contractors as though they are the actions of the Council.
Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the contractors wrongly put rubble into Mr X’s skip when they should have removed it from the site. This is fault. As I found fault, I then have to consider how Mr X was affected as a direct result.
The information provided shows there is agreement that the contractors did remove at least some of the rubble from the skip. However, there is a disagreement about the amount of rubble that remained in the skip. Mr X says there was a considerable amount left in the skip but the contractors say there was just a small amount of sand. I am not persuaded that any amount of investigation I could do would resolve this difference of opinion. I cannot judge what was left in the skip, how full the skip was when it was removed and whether or not the remaining rubbish could have fitted in.
While I acknowledge Mr X’s annoyance and frustration regarding the actions of the contractors in using his skip when they should not have, I am not persuaded he has suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant the use of public money to investigate this matter further. I consider it is still open to him to negotiate a payment through the contractors’ insurers.
Final decision
I will now discontinue the investigation as I am not persuaded Mr X has suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman