Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Police and Crime Panel’s handling of Mr X’s complaint about the Police and Crime Commissioner as there is insufficient injustice caused to Mr X to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) has not properly responded to his complaint that the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) did not provide updates after he took part in a consultation exercise. Mr X is unhappy given the time he spent reading and proving comments on the plan and as he feels public servants are not doing their jobs correctly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X volunteered to be part of a focus group to provide feedback on the PCC’s police and crime plan. Mr X complained to the PCC as he felt that subsequent to this, there was a lack of updates to the group and a failure by the PCC to provide a response to him personally for feedback.
6. In response, the Deputy PCC (DPCC) offered to speak with Mr X about his concerns and provided an update about the PCP and that Mr X’s comments would be taken account of in the consultation exercise. Mr X was unhappy with this response and so he complained to the PCP.
7. The PCP did not consider Mr X’s complaint related to the conduct of the PCP and therefore did not record the complaint or take any further action in respect of it. Mr X considers the PCP’s decision is wrong.
8. While I recognise Mr X remains unhappy with how the PCP dealt with his complaint, we will not investigate. This is because I consider the PCC’s response to Mr X mitigated any injustice he had, and to a level that would not warrant our involvement. It follows then that how the PCP dealt with Mr X’s subsequent complaint also did not cause Mr X a level of injustice that would warrant our involvement.
9. For this reason, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is not caused a sufficient level of injustice from it to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman