Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a blue badge investigation contractor. This is because most of it relates to a potential criminal investigation which lies outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains of misconduct by a contractor investigating the use of Blue Badges. Mr X says the officer tried to obtain information from his son’s school unfairly, that the officer’s actions caused his son to have a severe meltdown and fall. Mr X says the Council refuses to investigate.
2. Mr X says his son suffered a physical injury and significant emotional distress.
3. Mr X wants an independent investigation, an apology and a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• 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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant which includes the Council’s response.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. The Council has responded to Mr X. The Council says Mr X received a caution with respect to a suspected offence. It said the matter was being considered by its legal department for potential prosecution. And if prosecution took place Mr X would be able to put in a defence and any mitigating factors. It also said the contractor’s actions Mr X complained about were authorised under the Blue Badge Scheme legislation.
11. Overall, the Council said that because of the potential legal action, Mr X’s complaint was not suitable for its complaints procedure.
12. We will not investigate as I do not consider we have powers to investigate the main complaint issues. This is because Mr X’s complaint is connected to ongoing and potential legal action by the Council. And the officer’s actions arose in the context of the investigative method used and the way evidence was gathered.
13. I have considered if it would be possible for the Ombudsman to identify any issues not materially linked to the potential criminal prosecution on which we could achieve a meaningful outcome.
14. However, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take legal action against the Council for the alleged personal injury suffered by his son. The courts are better placed than the Ombudsman to determine personal injury claims. And, the regulator for information rights issues - the Information Commissioner - is better placed to consider if there were any breaches of data protection.
15. Finally, it is not fault by the Council to not investigate Mr X’s case under its complaint’s procedure. This is because complaint procedures exclude legal matters which can be aired in court and matters that can be considered by a regulator.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because most of it lies outside of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman