Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Fixed Penalty Notice issued for dropping litter. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about being issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering.
2. Mr X denies littering and says his mental health has been adversely affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation

(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 Mr X and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council issued Mr X with a FPN for dropping chewing gum. The FPN said Mr X could pay a fine as an alternative to prosecution. It also said he could make representations to the Council.
6. Mr X paid the fine and made representations to the Council.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s representations. It apologised for an administrative error in a letter it sent to him saying he had dropped cigarette butts. But it said it had reviewed the officer’s body-worn camera footage showing that Mr X apparently admitted dropping chewing gum. It reminded him the correct way to object to the FPN was to allow the case to escalate to the Magistrates Court where he could raise his defence. It said the case was closed due to the FPN being paid.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. We do not act as an alternative to the courts and can only consider if the Council followed the correct process.
9. It is the case that Mr X could have withheld payment, and then raised a defence in court, if he did not think he had committed an offence and thought the Council had incorrectly applied the law. The court would have decided if Mr X had committed an offence. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have done this because the courts are the appropriate body to decide if someone has committed an offence or if a council has applied the law correctly.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman