Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Police and Crime Panel considered his complaint about the Police and Crime Commissioner’s conduct. There is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to ensure the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC)
• complies with Nolan principles
• adequately monitor and train staff; and
• report a notifiable complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council’s Police and Crime Panel complaints procedure sets out what complaints the Panel will handle and its procedures for how it considers complaints.
6. The procedure says the Monitoring Officer will determine whether the complaint concerns the conduct of the PCC or the Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC).
7. In this case, Mr X disagrees with a complaint response received from the Police and Crime Commissioner. He complained the PCC had failed to ensure their staff were suitably trained and to monitor them. And they had failed to send his complaint to the IOPC.
8. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint. They concluded the "conduct" of an individual PCC when considering the Code of Conduct and Arrangements for dealing with complaints about their conduct, must mean their personal action or inaction in a situation; rather than their responsibility for the actions or inactions of others they employ. They decided Mr X’s complaint centred on the actions of PCC staff, rather than the personal conduct of the PCC themselves. Therefore they decided not to take further action.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault. The Monitoring Officer considered Mr X’s complaint and decided not to take further action. Although Mr X disagrees with the decision, the decision appears in line with the process set out in its complaints’ procedure. We cannot question a decision if there is no fault in how the decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman