Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a civil enforcement officer who issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice for smoking. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s investigation, and the alleged injustice to Mr X is not enough to warrant our involvement. Mr X has now paid the Fixed Penalty Notice and has therefore lost the right to put forward a defence in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the conduct of a civil enforcement officer who issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for smoking. Mr X says the officer was rude and he also disputes the offence.

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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council has considered complaints from Mr X about the conduct of the civil enforcement officer. It says it has viewed the footage from the civil enforcement officer’s body worn camera. It says there is no evidence the officer was rude to Mr X or behaved in an unacceptable manner. The Council says it cannot consider a complaint about whether the FPN should have been issued because Mr X has paid the fine.
5. The Ombudsman does not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include what an investigation could achieve, and the injustice caused to the person complaining.
6. The Council has looked at the camera footage and decided the officer acted appropriately. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add anything to the Council’s investigation. Also, it is clear Mr X is unhappy with the way the officer spoke to him. But on balance, the alleged injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
7. If Mr X wanted to dispute the FPN then could have decided not to pay it. The Council may then have prosecuted him for non-payment. Mr X would then have had a right of defence in the magistrates’ court and he could have presented his evidence to the Court. The Court was in the best position to consider the evidence from both parties and to decide whether to cancel the FPN. But by paying the fine Mr X has lost that right.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s investigation, and the injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman