Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to issue him with a community protection warning. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to issue him with a community protection warning. He says the warning is unjustified and has caused distress. He wants the Council to remove the community protection warning.

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.

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council explained to Mr X how it had reached its decision to issue him with a community protection warning. It said it had attempted to resolve the matter with him more informally, but he had declined to meet with officers. It said as part of its decision making it had considered CCTV, witness statements and evidence from relevant organisations. It was satisfied that its decision to issue him with the warning was appropriate.
7. 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.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council appears to have appropriately considered the matter before reaching its decision to issue the community protection warning to Mr X. Although I accept Mr X does not agree with its decision, there is insufficient evidence of fault in how it considered the matter, so we cannot question the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman