Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters which led to Mr X receiving a Community Protection Warning. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider its powers when it issued him with a Community Protection Warning. He says it did not investigate an earlier complaint from him made in 2020 and that it is not treating others in the same way as him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Council’s response to the complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council decided to issue Mr X with a Community Protection Warning, the purpose of which was to ask him to address certain activities which it considered were unreasonable and were having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the area.
8. Mr X complained to the Council about this and about the actions of Council officers dealing with the case. The Council did not uphold his complaint and found officers had acted reasonably within the powers available to them in issuing the Warning.
9. While Mr X may be unhappy with the action taken by the Council, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The Council investigated matters and decided to issue the Warning and there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decision. That it did not issue others with a Warning is not evidence of fault.
10. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 4 applies to past events from 2020. As we would reasonably have expected Mr X to have made a complaint about them to us sooner, they fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and will not be investigated.
11. Mr X says he is waiting for the Council to respond to an FOI request he made. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information and we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman