Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a case review to consider X’s reports of antisocial behaviour was chaired. This is because it is reasonable for X to request an appeal to the Police and Crime Commissioner.

The complaint

1. X complains about how an antisocial behaviour case review was chaired. X complains that they were incorrectly signposted to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) when they complained to the Council about this.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal.
• (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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. A case review was held to consider how X’s reports of antisocial behaviour were dealt with. The agencies involved in such reviews have an agreement in place that the PCC will deal with the case review process.
6. I will not investigate X’s complaint because it is reasonable for X to use their right of appeal to the PCC and there is insufficient evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to signpost X to this appeals process.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is reasonable for them to appeal to the PCC.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman