Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about lack of communication by the Police and Crime Commissioner about the Police and Crime Plan as this impacts on all or most of the people in the area and so is outside our legal remit. In addition, any remaining injustice caused to Mr X personally is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) about lack of updates after he volunteered to be part of a focus group, to provide comments on the Police and Crime Plan (PCP) for the area. Mr X also complains about how the PCC dealt with his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in an authority’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X volunteered to be part of a focus group to provide comments to the PCC on her PCP for the area.
7. Mr X complained to the PCC as he felt insufficient updates were provided following the consultation exercise and that no personal response was provided to him, after his request for feedback on the comments he had submitted about the PCP. Mr X complains the PCC did not deal with his complaint properly and that the responses were flippant and arrogant.
8. The PCC’s office contacted Mr X, around two months after he had raised his concerns, with an offer to discuss the issues with the Deputy PCC (DPCC), and then to provide a written update to confirm his comments had been taken account of in the consultation exercise. A general update about the PCP and budget was also provided.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s concerns about updates provided by the PCC to the public following the consultation exercise, as this impacts on all or most of the people in the PCC’s area and so is not within our remit, as per paragraph two.
10. I recognise that Mr X remains unhappy with how the PCC dealt with him personally. However, a response was provided which confirmed Mr X’s own comments were being considered in the consultation exercise. The DPCC also offered to speak with Mr X about his concerns and to engage in a written exchange of views with him. I do not consider therefore that any remaining personal injustice caused to Mr X is serious enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any remaining personal injustice caused to him is not sufficient to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman