The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a defective shower rail fitted as a disabled adaptation by the Council’s contractors. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to add to the Council’s responses as it has responded appropriately. Further, it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to take his claim for damage/personal injury to court.
The complaint
Mr X says a defective metal shower rail fell on his head and caused him a headache for nearly 4 days. Mr X also says his bathroom furniture was damaged due to the lack of a shower curtain. Mr X would like the damage to be rectified and a financial remedy.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. And I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has responded appropriately. And, Mr X can take his claim for property damage and personal injury to court.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman