Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the statements of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Police and Crime Commissioner (the Commissioner) made misleading and unsupportable claims about cannabis, so breached their legal obligations to act with objectivity and transparency. Mr X says these claims have caused general alarm and distress, particularly amongst people prescribed cannabis by their doctor.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the Council. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
6. Mr X disagrees with the views of the Commissioner about cannabis, and the source of the evidence the Commissioner relied on in reaching those views. Any distress or loss of trust Mr X experienced because of the Commissioner’s statements does not amount to significant enough personal injustice to warrant us devoting time and public money to investigating. Nobody else has asked Mr X to represent them, and it is anyway speculative whether the Commissioner’s statements have alarmed or distressed patients prescribed cannabis for medical reasons. It would therefore not be a good use of public resources for us to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman