Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street cleaning and an accusation, that the complainant denies, that he was rude and aggressive. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or that we could achieve the outcome the complainant wants. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to remove glass from a path and wrongly accused him of being rude and aggressive towards a street cleaner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code and invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says a street cleaner failed to pick up broken glass from the pavement and wrongly accused Mr X of being rude, aggressive and grabbing his arm. Mr X denies any wrong-doing. He wants the Council to apologise, withdraw the accusation and explain why the cleaner did not remove all the glass.
5. The Council initially partially upheld Mr X’s complaint and said it would raise the issue with the cleaner. The Council then dismissed the complaint and said the cleaner had reported that Mr X had been rude and aggressive. The Council said it had taken a statement from the cleaner and would go to the police if there was another incident. It said the road is swept once a week.
6. I asked the Council if anyone else had reported cleaning problems at this location. The Council said it had not received any other reports or complaints in the last six months.
7. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or that we could achieve the outcome Mr X wants. Mr X denies the allegation about his conduct. I have no reason to doubt Mr X but, equally, there is no reason for me to question the Council’s account. I am not aware of any independent evidence regarding what happened so I cannot form a view about the allegation. And, as I cannot form a view, I cannot ask the Council to withdraw the allegation or apologise.
8. I agree with Mr X that the stage one reply was weak. It does not give much information and does not explain why the complaint was partially upheld. However, the weakness in the complaint handling has not caused an injustice which requires an investigation. Similarly, while Mr X was disappointed the glass was not removed, this does not represent a significant injustice. The absence of any other reports for this location suggests there is not a significant problem with the street cleaning.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome and there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman