Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly rejecting Mr X’s request to activate the community trigger. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome or finding. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly rejected his request to activate the community trigger and that the Council is failing to publish the data required by the Anti-Social, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said he had been reporting incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to Lewisham Homes but that they did not appear to be taking any action.
6. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and found that it was at fault for rejecting Mr X's request to activate the community trigger. The Council noted that it incorrectly rejected Mr X’s request on the basis Lewisham Homes was in the process of dealing with his reports of ASB. However, it was noted the criteria for activating the community trigger is if there is a perception of a lack of action.
7. The investigating officer recommended the Council consider a new community trigger request from Mr X, based on more up to date information. This was because since Mr X’s original community trigger request, he had reported several further incidents.
8. An investigation is not justified as an Ombudsman investigation would not lead to a different outcome or finding. This is because the Council has already accepted it was wrong to reject Mr X’s community trigger request and the recommendations made are appropriate and proportionate.
9. In addition, it is not proportionate for us to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to publish the required data relating to community triggers. This is because I do not consider the alleged fault has caused any significant personal injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome or finding. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman