Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about littering by a Council parking enforcement officer. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council refusing to accept his claim that a parking enforcement officer dropped litter on the street. He says he was accused of harassment when he submitted video evidence to support his claim.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he witnessed a parking enforcement officer dropping litter on the street following his being issued with a parking penalty. He says he videoed the incident and sent it to the Council for action. The Council investigated his complaint. It told him the video was inconclusive about littering but did confirm that his behaviour to the officer could be seen as harassment and may report him to the Police in future for his actions.
6. Littering is a civil offence but it is enforced by issuing a fixed penalty which is a criminal matter for the magistrates court to decide. Only the Police, Police Community Support Officers and authorised Council enforcement officers can issue these penalties for witnessing littering. Mr X would not be able to take his own action over his allegations of littering.
7. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means 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 the claim that the officer dropped litter did not cause any significant personal injustice to Mr X and he could not expect this to affect the decision to issue parking penalty. If the Council decided to refer his actions to the Police for an offence of harassment this would be a criminal matter and we have no jurisdiction to consider this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about littering by a Council parking enforcement officer. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman