Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about a council officer pursuing his wife from outside a park. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr C, complained on behalf of his wife, Ms D, that a council parks officer pursued her for 15 minutes on a public highway from outside a park to her private residence which was both intimidating and threatening. He says the signage within the park was and still is both deliberately confusing and, in his opinion, sharp practice and misleading. Mr C says the council officer caused upset and it is no longer comfortable to walk in the park closest to their home.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information Mr C provided and information the Council publishes on its website. I invited Mr C to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council uses Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) to control parks and open spaces in its area. It has a Control of Dogs PSPO which applies to the park used by Ms D and to other areas. The PSPO sets out the circumstances in which a person in charge of a dog is guilty of an offence. The Council authorises patrol officers to take enforcement action.
5. In its final response to this complaint the Council said, although Mr C had raised the issue of poor signage, the patrol officer had told Ms D about the requirement for her to put her dog on a lead. Ms B was in breach of the PSPO by allowing her dog to be off the lead. The Council says Ms D did not put her dog on a lead immediately but then did so. However, when the patrol officer approached her again to ask for her personal details, she failed to give them. These details are needed so that the Council can issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for breach of a PSPO if it considers this is appropriate.
6. The Council says the patrol officer then called the police for assistance in getting Ms D’s personal information and started to follow her. But it says the officer stopped following Ms D once the police had confirmed it did not have the resources to attend.
7. The Council subsequently decided it is not appropriate to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice to Ms D.
8. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in this case. Mr C has complained about poor signage. However, the patrol officer’s initial intervention would have made Ms D aware of the PSPO and given her the opportunity to comply with it. It was not fault for the patrol officer to attempt to obtain Ms D’s personal details because these are needed should the Council decide to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman