Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr F’s complaint that the Council wrongly accused his daughter twice of dropping litter. One of the incidents happened too long ago; and there is not enough injustice to warrant investigation which would not, in any case, deliver the outcome Mr F seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains on behalf of his daughter, D, that the Council has acted incompetently and unprofessionally by wrongly accusing D twice of dropping litter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by Mr F who has had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. This decision reflects his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr F says that D has twice been stopped in town by Council enforcement officers who have accused her of dropping litter. The two incidents were a year apart. On both occasions, witnesses have confirmed that D did not drop the litter.
6. In the first case, in June 2017, D was issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice and given the option either of being taken to court or participating in a litter-picking session. She opted for the latter. Mr F says this was because she was anxious about the prospect of going to court, not because she admitted the offence. He says that she found the experience embarrassing and upsetting.
7. In the second case, D was accused of dropping litter while out in town. Mr F says that the person who actually had dropped the litter intervened and admitted the offence.
8. Mr F says that D has been left anxious by the incidents.
9. Mr F would like the Council to commission an independent review into the way it investigates and enforces littering, fly-tipping and related matters. He would also like a personal apology and compensation for D.

Assessment

10. Being accused of something you haven’t done is an upsetting experience. However, in my view, this is not a complaint which the Ombudsman should investigate.
11. The first incident happened almost two years ago and is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is a late complaint (see paragraph 3). I have considered whether we should make an exception to the general rule about this but have decided not to. Even if we take the two incidents together, in my view there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Given that the first incident was not contested at the time, there is very little that we could do about this. The latter incident does not, in my view, indicate any significant fault such as would justify investigation.
12. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not achieve Mr F’s stated aims: the two incidents were a year apart and, although it is unfortunate that D was involved on both occasions, this does not, in my view, indicate a systemic fault which would necessitate the Ombudsman seeking a review of the whole system. The Ombudsman would not start an investigation solely to achieve an apology. In my view, the injustice is not significant enough for the Ombudsman to ask for a compensatory payment.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because part of the complaint is late; there is no significant injustice and an investigation would not deliver the outcome Mr F seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman