Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of crime involving wildlife. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome. The law also prevents us from considering complaints about Council officers.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s Community Safety Neighbourhood Team failed to address reports of crime involving wildlife. He says it did not patrol the area or include wildlife crime in its community safety partnership plan. He also complains an officer was dismissive. He wants new officers hired and the officer replaced by someone more competent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about action taken by or on behalf of any local policing body in connection with the investigation or prevention of crime. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, Section 26, paragraph 2 as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
5. 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:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X lives in an area covered by a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO). He says he reported incidents concerning harm to wildlife to the police, who told him they did not have enough patrols to enforce the PSPO.
9. The Council said it introduced the PSPO to address these issues. Both the Council and the police can enforce it. Patrols take place, but crime involving wildlife does not have its own partnership strategy. The Council sets its priorities each year using crime data.
10. Mr X complained to the Council that is Community Safety Neighbourhood Team had failed to tackle crimes against wildlife. He said a community safety officer was dismissive. He wanted the Council to replace the officer with someone more competent and hire new officers.
11. The Council refused to consider the complaint because its Corporate Complaints Policy does not cover complaints about the dismissal of staff.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. I recognise the distress the alleged harm to wildlife has caused Mr X. The evidence shows Council did officers carry out some patrols. The Council must balance its limited resources and decide which issues to prioritise. It explained that it uses information gathered through public consultation and crime data to set borough-wide priorities. Council officers were entitled to use their professional judgement when setting these priorities. An investigation would not achieve anything more for Mr X.
13. In any event, Mr X complains the Council officer was dismissive. We cannot investigate this matter. As paragraph 4 explains, the law prevents us from considering this.
14. We also cannot investigate the alleged crimes themselves. These are matters for the police.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome. The law also prevents us from considering complaints about Council officers.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman