Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not removing unauthorised flags from street furniture. We will also not investigate how the Council handled non-payment of Council tax. This is because we are unlikely to find fault. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council discriminated against him and treated him differently because of his race. He says the Council failed to take action against a person who unlawfully put up flags on street furniture but still pursued him for Council tax. Mr X says it has been stressful. He wants the Council to enforce the law for everyone and keep the community safe.

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, or
• 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about someone putting flags on street furniture. Mr X said he would stop paying Council tax until it removes the flags.
6. The Council told Mr X it would not remove the flags unless there was a safety hazard. It assessed the flags and decided there was no safety hazard. The Council was entitled to decide whether to remove flags from street furniture. There is no duty for councils to remove items attached to street furniture. It is unlikely we could say that removing the flags or leaving them in place amounts to fault. I also do not consider Mr X has suffered significant injustice to warrant the time and public money to investigate the matter further.
7. Mr X further complained the Council discriminated against him because it pursued him for Council tax payments, but did not investigate the person who put the flags up.
8. The Council told Mr X it would take enforcement action where it is proportionate. It did not consider enforcement action was proportionate in this case. Police were aware of the matter. The Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a third party has not caused significant injustice to Mr X.
9. The Council was entitled to pursue Mr X for the Council tax he owed. There are laws and regulations that control how councils collect Council tax payments and how they can make people pay Council tax they owe. (Council Tax [Administration and Enforcement] Regulations 1992). We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council pursued Mr X for Council tax payment.
10. Mr X complained the Council has discriminated against him under the Equality Act. We cannot decide if a Council has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. The Ombudsman is satisfied the Council followed the correct procedures in this case and properly considered Mr X’s concerns. We are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman