Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council wrongly issuing him a Fixed Penalty Notice for allegedly littering with intention. This is because it would be reasonable for him to refer to the courts and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for allegedly littering with intention. He also complained about the officer’s conduct towards him and that the Council poorly managed his complaint. The matter caused Mr X frustration. He wants the Council to accept it acted with fault, to provide him with an apology and a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
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 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said an enforcement officer issued him a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for littering. Mr X said litter fell out of his pocket without his knowledge and so the Council should not have issued him an FPN.
7. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because he has an alternative route to challenge the FPN. If Mr X disputes the alleged offence, he has the right to defend the matter in court, which is the appropriate forum to determine whether the offence was committed and whether he is liable for the FPN. We are not an appeal body and cannot make that determination or cancel the FPN. It is therefore reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to defend the matter through the courts.
8. Mr X said the enforcement officer’s conduct towards him was inappropriate as they made judgmental comments about him. The Council reviewed its body camera footage and found no evidence to support Mr X’s claims. However, it accepted the officer could have handled the interaction with Mr X better and said it had addressed the matter with them to improve its service. This was appropriate and so we could not add to this.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive matter Mr X complains of, we will not consider how the Council managed his complaint. This is because we do not investigate complaint handling as a standalone matter as it is not a good use of public money to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for him to refer to the courts and we could not add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman