The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a waste collection lorry driving too fast over a speed bump causing a house to shake. The Council has spoken with the waste contractor to advise its drivers to slow down. Although this has not resolved the issue, it is not proportionate to investigate further. There is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. Any damage to property would be for insurance companies to decide.
The complaint
Mr B says the Council failed to act to stop a bin lorry going too fast over a speed bump, causing his house to shake. Mr B is worried about potential damage to his property. Mr B would like the Council to supervise the driver, and to witness the issue in his home.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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), as amended, section 34(B)) We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has investigated and taken the right steps in considering relevant information and evidence. The Council says it has reviewed video evidence and data from the refuse lorry and cannot see evidence of careless driving. It has spoken with the waste contractor to tell its drivers to slow down over speed bumps. It suggested Mr B could put up a warning sign about the speed bump to advise drivers to slow down.
I understand Mr B says this has not resolved the issue. However, this is not evidence of fault in the Council’s decision or the way it has investigated. It is not proportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate to ask for further action in this case.
We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. Mr B’s house shaking is not a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
Mr B is worried about future damage to his property. If that happens, it would be for the relevant insurance company to decide liability and any financial award.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council took to investigate and respond, and it is unlikely we would add anything further. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to justify our further involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman