Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Environmental Enforcement Officer who issued the complainant with a Fixed Penalty Notice for littering. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the actions of the Council’s Environmental Enforcement Officer (EEO) who issued him with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Mr X has complained to the Council about an EEO who issued him with an FPN for littering – Mr X dropped a cigarette butt on the floor. Mr X paid the FPN. In his complaint to the Council Mr X said the EEO followed him for around 600 metres after he lit a cigarette. Mr X dropped the cigarette onto the floor and the EEO then approached him after he had left a shop. Mr X said the EEO was negative, rude, and there was a hint of racial bias to his behaviour. Mr X said the EEO turned his badge around to hide his identification. Mr X asked the Council why the EEO had only approached Mr X and his wife when there was rubbish everywhere and others were smoking.
6. In its responses to Mr X the Council said:
• It had viewed the bodycam footage from the EEO.
• The Council has a zero-tolerance policy to littering.
• EEOs have a duty to approach members of the public and issue an FPN where necessary. EEOs can only issue an FPN if they see littering taking place.
• The EEO introduced himself and his identification was on display. The EEO advised Mr X his bodycam was in operation.
• The EEO was polite and courteous.
• The EEO refused Mr X’s request to see his identification as Mr X had his phone out to photograph the identification. The EEO explained to Mr X his identification number was on the FPN.
• EEOs have been instructed to turn their identification over if a member of the public attempts to take a photograph.
• Bodycams do not have to be always active. But an EEO should record at the start of the FPN process and until an FPN had been issued. The EEO did this.
• The EEO told Mr X what he had witnessed and the FPN was correctly issued.

Assessment

7. Mr X has paid the FPN the EEO issued. This means he accepts the offence took place. If Mr X wanted to challenge the FPN then he had the option of not paying the fine and raising a defence in court. Whether the FPN should have been issued is not therefore something we can consider.
8. The remaining issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint is the actions of the EEO. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint. This is because:
• Mr X says the EEO “followed” him - but this is not something we could ever establish.
• Mr X’s interaction with the EEO then took place because of the cigarette he dropped – an offence Mr X has accepted. The fact there was other litter on the floor is irrelevant.
• We could never say the EEO targeted Mr X because of his race. As noted above, Mr X has accepted he committed an offence by paying the FPN
• The Council has considered Mr X’s complaint and says the EEO acted appropriately.
• The EEO used their bodycam to record the issuing of the FPN – in line with the Council’s process.
• The Council has explained why the EEO turned their identification around. Mr X says he only tried to take a photograph because the EEO refused to show their identification. But as the Council has explained, the EEO’s identification number was on the FPN.
9. Based on the evidence available there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating. There was no injustice to Mr X from the issue with the EEO’s badge as their identification number was available on the FPN. The Council has provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses to Mr X’s complaint. It is unlikely we could add anything to the response he has already received. We will not therefore investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or injustice to Mr X, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman