Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has lied to him about whether the CCTV cameras in an overnight facility are fixed in position. This is because we do not look behind the actions of the Council to establish the motives for what it has done and we cannot say Mr B he has suffered sufficient injustice as a result of the Council’s actions to justify us investigating his complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council has lied to him about whether the CCTV cameras in an overnight facility for which it is responsible are fixed in position. Mr B reported he was assaulted while he was staying at the facility but the organisation which manages it has assured the Council that, whilst Mr B was in the view of the CCTV at all times, it could not find recorded evidence of anyone approaching him or his belongings in the relevant period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the information Mr B provided and the Council’s responses to his complaint. I have given Mr B an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B told us he was assaulted in his sleep. The complainant sought reassurance about his safety from staff. He says they assured him he would be safe and there was CCTV coverage. Mr B told us he would check the camera in the office because he wanted to make sure he could be seen on the camera. He says the cameras kept moving but, when he complained, the Council has told him they do not move. He feels the Council can only be saying this for a negative reason. Mr B says he explained the problem to a third party who visited the facility to ask if there was any issues or problems. Mr B says he feels the council are lying and he wants to know why.
6. As part of its investigation of Mr B’s complaint the Council said it had made detailed enquiries with the company who installed the CCTV. The Council said the company had confirmed the cameras were fixed and there were no blind spots. The Council has taken the steps we would expect in investigating Mr B’s complaint. It was not fault for it to accept what the CCTV installation company had said if it judges there were insufficient grounds to question it. We consider whether there is enough evidence of injustice caused by fault by a Council. We do not look behind the actions of the Council to establish the motives for what it has done.
7. Mr B is no longer living at the facility. We could not now safely establish if the CCTV cameras moved while he was there and this prevented them from filming the assault at the relevant time. While Mr B is very dissatisfied with the way the Council has treated him, we cannot say he has suffered sufficient injustice as a result of the Council’s actions to justify us investigating his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we do not look behind the actions of the Council to establish the motives for what it has done and we cannot say Mr B he has suffered sufficient injustice as a result of the Council’s actions to justify us investigating his complaint.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman