Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Community Protection Warning. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his brother, Mr Y. He said the Council failed to properly investigate concerns raised about Mr Y’s behaviour before it issued him a Community Protection Warning (CPW). He said it did not complete a site visit and failed to consider if the allegations against Mr Y were part of a hate campaign. He said the Council’s actions had impacted on Mr Y’s wellbeing. He wants the Council to apologise and retract the CPW.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed it had received reports about Mr Y’s behaviour from several independent sources. It said it spoke to Mr Y about the concerns, but the behaviour continued. It therefore decided to issue a CPW setting out what behaviour it needed Mr Y to stop.
7. The Council said the investigating officer did not complete a site visit, as they had gathered sufficient information during their investigation. However, as part of the complaint handling the Council considered additional evidence provided by Mr X. It said this did not change the outcome of its investigation. The Council confirmed it remained alert to the multiple dynamics, when investigating a case. However, stated in this instance the investigating officer did not have concerns about the information they received in relation to Mr Y.
8. Although Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s complaint response, we will not investigate. We cannot question if the Council’s decision to issue Mr Y a CPW was right or wrong, we can only consider whether it followed the correct process before issuing the warning. The Council’s complaint response confirms it collated information from independent sources and discussed its concerns with Mr Y before issuing the warning letter. It has considered the additional evidence provided by Mr X and confirmed that does not change its view. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman