Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a community protection warning notice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a community protection warning notice (warning notice) and other matters. He says the Council:
• failed to disclose evidence which led it to issuing the warning notice;
• did not clearly identify the boundaries of a community protection notice (CPN) it issued against him;
• wrongly dismissed a complaint he made about physical assault and biosecurity breaches;
• included repeated inaccuracies across its correspondence and statutory notices;
• failed to respond to his information requests or correct information concerning his land ownership; and
• mishandled his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. The Information Commissioner considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complains the Council did not disclose evidence which led it to issuing a warning notice against him.
10. Councils have the power to issue CPNs to address anti-social behaviour. Before issuing a CPN, Councils must first give recipients a formal written warning. The warning must describe the behaviour causing concern and explain the possible consequences if it continues. There is no requirement for the Council to disclose evidence which led it to issue a warning notice.
11. The Council gave Mr X a warning before it issued the CPN. It was entitled to refuse disclosing evidence which led it to issuing the warning notice in the circumstances. There is not enough evidence of fault on this point to justify us investigating.
12. Since Mr X complained to us, the Council issued a CPN against him. It also initiated court proceedings for breach of that notice. Mr X complains the Council did not clearly identify the boundaries of the CPN.
13. As these events occurred after Mr X complained to us, we cannot consider it as part of our assessment of this complaint. This is because the Council has not yet had a reasonable opportunity to reply to these matters. Mr X may complain to us again once he has raised these matters with the Council and provided us evidence that he has completed its complaints procedure.

Dismissal of complaint

14. Mr X complains the Council wrongly dismissed a complaint he made about a physical assault and biosecurity breaches.
15. The Council's complaint response shows these concerns relate to alleged police conduct. Mr X has also raised these matters separately with the police.
16. Councils are not responsible for investigating police conduct. Therefore, the Council was entitled to refuse to consider this complaint in the circumstances. We also cannot investigate police conduct. The appropriate body to consider such concerns is the Independent Office for Police Conduct. For this reason, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Inaccuracies in Council’s records and notices

17. Mr X says the Council included inaccurate information in correspondence and statutory notices.
18. The Council corrected an error in its compliance letter of 11 September 2025 after it became aware of the mistake. Therefore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating this point.
19. The other alleged inaccuracies relate to documents issued after Mr X complained to us. The Council has not yet had an opportunity to consider these concerns through its complaints process. Mr X may bring these matters to us again once he has raised them with the Council and completed its complaints procedure.

Information requests and correction of records

20. Mr X also complains the Council failed to respond to information requests and failed to correct records relating to his land ownership.
21. These issues also arose after Mr X complained to us, so I will not assess this aspect of his complaint. In any event, complaints about information requests, personal data and the accuracy of records are matters the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider. I see no good reason for us to investigate these matters instead of the Information Commissioner.

Complaint handling

22. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints. As a publicly funded body we must be careful we how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive matters, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X's complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council's handling of the warning notice to justify an investigation. Some parts of the complaint concern matters we cannot investigate or which are better considered by other bodies. The remaining issues have not yet been considered through the Council's complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman