Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his report about a Council employee littering. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his report that he witnessed a person he believes to be a Council employee littering by dropping a cigarette butt out of a car window. Mr X says the Council lied to him when it said it would consider the case. Mr X has also reported the matter to the police.

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 do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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 matter set out in paragraph one, above and provided video evidence of the interaction in support of his complaint.
7. The Council said it considered the evidence Mr X provided, however it did not show anyone littering or dropping anything on the floor and whilst one of the people said their relative was a Council employee there was no evidence to support this claim.
8. It explained that in order to take action against a person for an alleged littering offence it needs to have sufficient evidence to do so. This could be via video footage of the offence, it being witnessed by an authorised officer or the person admitting the offence. In this case, the evidence Mr X provided was not sufficient for it to take any such action. It noted Mr X’s intention to report the matter to the police and said it would liaise with the police should it decide to investigate the matter.
9. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s response on this matter, it is not a complaint we will investigate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It considered the information Mr X provided and clearly explained why it was not sufficient for it to take enforcement action on this occasion. There is nothing further we could add to the response and explanation the Council has already provided via its own investigation. I note Mr X’s concerns that the person he saw littering was a Council officer but this was solely based on the person’s comment and there is no evidence to support their claim.
10. Mr X also complains about complaint handling issues, however we do not investigate these in isolation where we are not also investigating the substantive matter. This is because it is not a good use of limited public funds for us to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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