Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s officer stole a mobile phone from his home. Mr X says the officer then broke into the property to return it and that the Council did not write to him about the matter. Allegations of crime are a matter for the police. There is no reason to investigate the Council’s communication with Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not dealt properly with his report that on 24 February an officer who visited his home stole his mobile phone. Mr X says that later the same morning he found the phone which means the officer must have returned and broken into his home to return the phone. Mr X says he spoke to a manager who lied saying the officer was in the office at the time he was alleged to have returned to the property. Mr X says an officer who dealt with a complaint in March was going to write again but did not do so and the Council did not deal with the allegation of crime via its complaint procedure. He says the Council caused him time and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

4. I have considered Mr X’s comments and information. I have clarified the position regarding Mr X’s complaints with the Council. I have considered our recent decisions on Mr X’s complaints involving planning and environmental protection.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council says on 24 February 2020 two officers called at Mr X’s home to collect noise monitoring equipment. Later that morning Mr X reported that he believed one of the officers had stolen his mobile phone. Mr X says when he returned home he found the phone in his living room. He says he contacted the Council again and told it the officer must have broken into his flat to return the mobile phone. Mr X says a manager told him that the officer was in the office but earlier another officer told him he was not. The Council says both officers denied having acted dishonestly.
6. On 16 January and 10 February 2020 Mr X complained to the Council about the handling of his noise nuisance complaints. The Council replied on 30 January and 16 March. The correspondence does not mention the allegation of theft. The Council’s second reply advised Mr X he could complain to this office. It says it had not been able to deal with one of Mr X’s comments because the officer was away. This was about Mr X reporting other issues such as trespass by the builders and damage to property in addition to noise nuisance. The Council had closed the noise complaint in January. It advised Mr X how to report or complain about future problems. Mr X says the manager failed to write again regarding the nuisance complaint and refused to deal with a complaint about the mobile phone.
7. On 24 March 2020, the Ombudsman closed Mr X’s complaint (19009486) about noise caused by nearby construction work over an 8 to 9 month period. The building work was completed by August 2019 and the potential nuisance had ended at that time. The decision was that the Council had not caused Mr X injustice.
8. On 8 July 2020, the Ombudsman closed Mr X’s complaint (19012646) about a loft conversion. There was no fault by the Council.

Analysis

9. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
10. The investigation of the crime alleged in this complaint is the responsibility of the police. If Mr X believed his property was stolen or his home broken into he could have reported the matter to the police.
11. The mobile phone was found within a few hours. The Council spoke to Mr X about it at the time and does not believe its officers acted dishonestly. There is no reason for it to communicate with Mr X further about the matter.
12. Mr X had a complaint open with this office at the time of the alleged theft. He could have complained to us at the time but it appears he did not do so. If he had we would not have investigated. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate the communication/complaint handling when we could not deal with the substantive matter.
13. The Ombudsman has already investigated Mr X’s planning and nuisance complaints. Mr X has not provided significant new information which would require further investigation. The Ombudsman’s decisions were made after Mr X’s complaint correspondence with the Council. The Council has no need to write again to Mr X about those matters.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s officer stole a mobile phone from his home. He says the officer then broke into the property to return it and the Council did not write to him about the matter. Allegations of crime are a matter for the police. There is no reason to investigate the Council’s communication with Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman