Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s street enforcement officers and its reply to his complaint. The Council has taken appropriate action by writing to Mr X and apologising for the failures in communication.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s enforcement officers shouted at him in the street and spoke to him inappropriately when he took a photograph of them.
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to reply to his complaint or communications about the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• 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 are satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposes to take.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. I have communicated with the Council about the complaint and considered its correspondence with Mr X including his photograph.

Back to top

What I found

5. In October 2020 Mr X complained to the Council that people who appeared to be enforcement officers had shouted at him when he had taken a photograph of them. Mr X says the enforcement officers were stopping people in the street. He could not see identification and wondered if they were not authorised or bogus. The Council sent Mr X an automatic reply acknowledging his complaint.
6. Mr X contacted the Council again and when he did not get a reply complained to the Ombudsman.
7. On 19 January 2021, the Council contacted Mr X and asked him to provide his photograph of the enforcement officers which he did that day. On 2 March, the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It confirmed the officers were acting for it and had identification as part of their uniform. The Council says several of the individuals are no longer employed by it. It says the reported language is not compliant with its standards. The officer dealing with the matter has acknowledged to this office that she delayed in dealing with it.
8. On 6 May, at my request, the Council wrote again to Mr X. The Council says the behaviour of the enforcement officers was not acceptable. It has informed its contractor and will expect measures to stop a reoccurrence. The Council apologised to Mr X for any distress caused and the ‘unacceptable delay’ in replying to his communications.

Analysis

9. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
10. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is insufficient injustice to investigate. Mr X was not stopped by the enforcement officers and chose to take a photograph of them. He did not hear clearly what they said when they then shouted at him. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate.
11. The Council failed to communicate with Mr X appropriately and delayed replying to his complaint about the matter. I am satisfied it has taken appropriate action. At my request, the Council has written to Mr X and has given an appropriate apology. It has also commented on what happened and has made its contractor aware of what happened.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of the street enforcement officers and its reply to his complaint. The Council has taken appropriate action by writing to Mr X and apologising for the failures in communication.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman