Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an alleged assault by a security guard at a fringe event. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the Ombudsman cannot investigate allegations of crime.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, alleges a security guard assaulted him at a fringe event. Mr X says the Council should better control security guards at events it licenses.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the replies from the firm that ran the event and the reply from the Council. I considered the Council’s licensing policy and I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Licensing

4. The Council may require an event organiser to employ security guards as a condition of getting a licence for an event.

What happened

5. Mr X attended a fringe event. The event was run by a private company. The private company employed security guards. The Council provided a licence for the event. The Council did not run the event and it did not employ the security guards.
6. Mr X says he was assaulted by a security guard at the event. He alleges one of the guards tackled him and he ended up on the ground. He denies displaying any hostile or abusive behaviour.
7. Conversely, the firm running the event says Mr X became hostile after the security guards tried to stop him taking a drink outside. The firm says a guard tried to remove a drink from Mr X who then spun round and fell. The firm has viewed the CCTV and states that another member of Mr X’s group jumped on the back of a security guard. A security guard offered to call the police for Mr X but Mr X walked away.
8. Mr X continues to assert that he was assaulted and he did nothing wrong. He is unhappy with the Council’s response that the firm employs the security guards. He thinks the Council has responsibility because it licensed the event. Mr X does not accept the firm’s view that he was confrontational and hostile.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
10. Mr X alleges he was assaulted by the guards. The firm says the security guards used reasonable force to deal with Mr X’s behaviour. Mr X has made an allegation of crime which needs to be considered by the police. The Ombudsman cannot decide if the guards assaulted Mr X.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council did not run or organise the event and it did not employee the security guards. The licence may have required the firm to provide security at the event but that does not mean the Council is responsible for the conduct of the guards.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because Mr X can report the incident to the police and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman