Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that a Council officer accused him of lying about his address when he was being issued a Fixed Penalty Notice. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant a further investigation by this office.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains a Council officer accused him of lying about his address whilst issuing him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for alleged 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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of an officer whilst issuing him a FPN. Mr X says the officer initially wrongly accused him of giving false information when he provided his address.
7. The Council investigated and reviewed the officer’s body worn footage from the interaction. It said the officer told Mr X the address he provided was not confirmed on his device. He then asked Mr X whether he had any proof of address to verify it. The matter was resolved when a further check was made by the officer during the interaction which confirmed the details Mr X provided were correct.
8. The Council said the footage showed the officer was polite and courteous and the request for Mr X to provide proof of address was not made in order to imply he was lying, but to try to verify the address. It explained officers are required to verify the accuracy of details provided when issuing a FPN. As such, it found no sign of fault in the officer’s actions as he was acting in line with its procedures. However, it apologised to Mr X for the upset the interaction caused him.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. The Council has explained the reason for the officer checking the address and it was acting in line with the requirements when issuing a FPN. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X was distressed by the interaction I can see no evidence to indicate that this was caused by fault by the Council. Further to this, the issue was resolved by the end of the interaction. The matter did not cause Mr X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants the use of limited public funds for us to carry out a further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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