Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council enforcement officers who stopped Mr X in relation to an alleged offence of littering. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains he was wrongly stopped by Council enforcement officers in relation to the alleged offence of littering by throwing down a cigarette butt. He says he is a non-smoker and that the officers lied when they said they had witnessed him commit the offence and that they had video footage to prove it.

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 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was stopped by two Council enforcement officers who told him they had witnessed him littering by throwing down a cigarette butt. No fine was issued to Mr X but he complained to the Council about the behaviour of the two enforcement officers and claimed they had lied.
6. The Council investigated his complaint and the investigating officer spoke to the two officers concerned and viewed the body camera footage. Having done so the Council concluded there was no evidence to suggest fault by the enforcement officers.
7. The body camera footage is no longer available. The Council has confirmed that when it investigated the original complaint, the enforcement officers said they had both witnessed the event. It said the video footage the investigating officer saw confirmed the two officers stating they had seen Mr X littering but not that the act had been caught on video.
8. Mr X says he was told by the officers that he had been recorded littering on video. However, the body camera footage is no longer available and as there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation, we will not pursue the complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman