Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a community protection warning letter for removal of graffiti on private property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council issuing a community protection warning letter for the removal of graffiti from a wall on property which he owns. He says this was unreasonable because he is the victim of the graffiti and he should not have to pay for this or be threatened with further action. He also questioned the Council’s use of the local Police force logo on its warning letter.

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
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was issued with a community protection warning letter by the Council when it identified him as the owner of property which has been sprayed with graffiti. The Council required him to remove the graffiti or pay it for removal. The warning letter was issued under the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
6. He complained to the Council about the letter and queried why it used the Police logo when it is the local authority. He believes this was used to intimidate recipients of the letters which are not issued by the Police.
7. The Council told him that it understands he is the victim of the graffiti by unknown persons but it still has powers to compel landowners to clear up graffiti on their property just as it does with fly-tipped waste on land. The Council told him that the warning letter is only the lowest part of action under the legislation and it gives him an opportunity to remove the graffiti without the need for further action. If he does not comply with the warning the Council may issue a community protection notice under the same legislation.
8. The Council told Mr X that it is part of the Community Safety Partnership for the County which includes the Police and social landlords, and the Police have no objection to its continued use of the Police logo. Community partnerships were established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which was amended by the Police and Justice Act 2006. Community protection warnings and notices can be issued by any of the members in the partnership under the same legislation.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. There is no fault in the Council issuing the warning letter which it has powers to do. If the Council issues a community protection notice against Mr X for failure to comply then he will have a right of appeal to the Magistrates Court should he wish to challenge it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a community protection warning letter for removal of graffiti on private property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman