Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Community Protection Warning. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss C complains the Council issued her with a community protection warning (CPW) without notice, without a proper investigation, and with factual errors. Miss X says the CPW caused her distress, and she wants the Council to withdraw the 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council issued the CPW after receiving complaints and explained its reasons. Miss X challenged the CPW through the Council’s complaints procedure but the Council, while addressing factual errors, upheld the warning.
6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
7. I recognise receiving the CPW caused Miss X distress and confusion. However, the Council did not have to discuss the concerns with Miss X before issuing the CPW. The Council has also explained how it investigated the concerns before issuing the warning. Miss X was able to challenge the CPW through the Council’s complaints procedure.
8. The CPW is only a warning to recipients to change behaviour, and the Council has not taken enforcement action. There is nothing to suggest the changes in behaviour the Council sought to achieve would cause Miss X significant daily inconvenience or would be very different from normal expectations of behaviour. So, I do not consider the CPW or the Council’s conduct has caused Miss X significant enough injustice to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman