Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a warning issued to Miss X. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains she was issued with a community protection warning by the Council for anti-social behaviour based on evidence that has not been released to her.
2. Miss X reports feeling stigmatised in the community and says this has caused her significant reputational harm. She would like the warning revoked and all related records removed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating,
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X complains she was not shown the evidence relied on by the Council or given a chance to respond. She says she was involved in only one incident and responded after she had been provoked and threatened.

8. The Council has reviewed Miss X’s concerns but concluded the warning met the relevant criteria determined by the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. In coming to its decision, it reviewed all evidence. It says it cannot release the evidence to Miss X as it would disclose information relating to another individual. It advises Miss X she can raise this with the Office of the Information Commissioner.
9. The Ombudsman is concerned with administrative fault and not the merits of decisions. It seems the steps taken by the Council include relying on evidence and arranging to review Miss X’s appeal by other officers. The other officers found no reasons to depart from the original decision to send the warning letter.
10. We will not investigate. This is because we are unlikely to find sufficient fault in the Council’s decision to send a warning letter.
11. While Miss X understandably would like to see the evidence relied on by the Council, this matter is better addressed by another body. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider if the Council is justified in not releasing the evidence to Miss X.
12. I should add that if the matter escalates and Miss X is issued with a community protection notice, she will have a statutory right of appeal via the magistrate’s court. The court has the power to revoke any notice and issue a binding decision on the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation is 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