Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a highways officer. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. It upheld the complaint, spoke with the officer, and apologised to the complainant for the distress and confusion. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr B says a Council officer arrived at his property in beach wear, with a dog, and in a non-identifiable car. The officer would not present identification when asked. Mr B says the officer threatened a custodial sentence. Mr B has been distressed and contacted the police as was unsure this was genuinely a council officer. Mr B believes the officer should be dismissed.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepted the officer was wrong to turn up informally dressed. It has spoken with the officer and apologised to Mr B for the distress and confusion caused.
7. The Council explained that a custodial sentence is a possible result for obstructing a highway. It is proper for officers to discuss this, even though it might feel distressing. But the Council has apologised to Mr B if he was offended by the way the officer spoke.
8. Mr B would like the officer dismissed from post. This is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve as we have no powers to get involved in personnel matters between employer and employee.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to apologise to Mr B and speak with the relevant officer to improve future service. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to this or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman