Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a notice warning against anti-social behaviour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council put up false notices which wrongly imply the estate is under a control order. Mr X says the signs have caused him to become housebound. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and withdraw the signs.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered a copy of the sign and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Control orders

4. Control orders are issued by the Secretary of State to impose strict conditions on a suspected terrorist.

What happened

5. The Council issued warming signs, under the ASB, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to deal with anti-social behaviour (ASB). It issued the signs because it had received complaints about ASB. The signs said people must not loiter or congregate in groups of more than two, should not drink alcohol and cause a nuisance, and not to urinate in public. The notice said that someone could be fined if they breached the terms of the notice or did not leave the area when asked to do so by a police officer.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about the signs. In response the Council explained it had put up the signs because people had complained about ASB. It said the signs were intended to create awareness of ASB and warn of the potential penalties. It said the signs do not mention control orders. The Council said it had removed the signs because reports of ASB had decreased. It apologised for any distress caused to Mr X and said it would review any future signs to see if it could be made clearer that the signs were to act as a deterrent.
7. Mr X says the Council did not follow the correct process to designate the area. He says the Council is trying to fool the vulnerable and says it is a racist endeavour.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The law allows councils to put up warning signs to deter ASB. The Council put up the signs because there was ASB in the area. It has now removed the signs because complaints of ASB have fallen. The signs do not refer to control orders and are not control orders.
9. The Council could have made it clearer that the signs were only warnings. But this does not need an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The signs would only have an impact on someone who was engaging in ASB. There is nothing stated on the signs which would cause anyone to become housebound and nothing which is directed at any race or ethnicity. In addition, the Council has removed the signs and said it will review the wording of any further signs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman