The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide Mr X with CCTV footage of an accident he was involved in. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council not having CCTV footage available of a traffic accident he was involved in. He says it should have ensured that all its cameras are working and that public safety is not being protected.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says he was involved in an accident with a cyclist in the city which is covered by CCTV cameras. He asked the Council to provide footage of the accident to help with his claim against the cyclist. The Council told him that it did not have any coverage of the site because a camera was not operating at the time. It also said that even if it had been operable it may not have been angled to monitor that part of the road at the time of the accident.
Mr X complained about the quality of the CCTV coverage and asked for compensation. The Council told him that it does not use the camera system to provide evidence for traffic incidents but only for monitoring crime, traffic offences and emergencies where services need to be directed.
There is no statutory requirement for a council to have CCTV coverage and many do not. Cameras may cover areas where there are particular incidents of criminal activity or likely traffic management problems. Mr X had a right to ask for any CCTV footage in which he was identified under access to information legislation. Normally this would not include footage which identified other persons which have not consented to its disclosure.
In this case the incident was not covered by cameras and Mr X would have to pursue his claim against the cyclist through the normal insurance channels.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide Mr X with CCTV footage of an accident he was involved in. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman