Summary: Mr X complained a Council officer broke into his garden to investigate fly tipping. We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would decide Mr X suffered a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a Council officer broke into his garden to investigate fly tipping. He says this caused damage to the yale lock and the officer left the property unsecured. Mr X says this left him shocked and scared.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained, and reviewed the CCTV footage he provided.
4. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In September 2019, the Council visited Mr X’s property to investigate fly-tipping. Mr X has CCTV footage of the Council’s visit. He says the gate was locked and he says the CCTV shows the officer breaking the lock on his gate to enter.
6. Mr X complained and showed the Council the CCTV footage. The Council reviewed it but said there was no evidence its officer broke the lock. The officer said they did not force entry. I have reviewed the footage, and I also cannot see any substantive evidence the officer broke the lock or forced entry. The Council officer says the gate was not locked. We could not say now whether it was.
7. I do not believe if we investigated this complaint, we would find Mr X had been caused a significant injustice due to fault by the Council. Mr X wants the Council to pay for the cost of fixing the yale lock. I have not seen substantive evidence the Council caused damage, however matters of damage to possessions are more appropriately dealt with by the courts than the Ombudsman. Mr X could consider applying to the small claims court if he believes this would be successful, to recover this cost.
8. Mr X says he was left shocked and scared. However, based on the information I have seen, this is not significant enough alone to justify our involvement. Nor am I convinced it is more likely than not we would decide this was caused by Council fault.
9. The officer entered Mr X’s yard to take photographs, and this does not appear to have been with Mr X’s permission. We cannot deal with matters of trespass, and this may be more appropriately dealt with by the courts. It is open to Mr X to seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue this.
10. Mr X also had concerns about the time the Council took to respond to his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. We therefore also propose not to investigate the complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find Mr X had been caused a significant injustice due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman