Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of a Civil Enforcement Officer and about the Council’s response to his complaint about it. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions of a Civil Enforcement Officer and about the Council’s handling of, and response to, his complaint about it. He also complains about the Council’s response to his subject access request and freedom of information request.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the conduct of one of its Civil Enforcement Officers. He complained the officer, who he had complained about a year prior, approached him when he was legally parked and displaying a valid blue badge and said, “good morning, are you alright?” Mr X says he asked the officer not to speak to him. The officer was stood close to his car and he asked her to move out of the way, but she said she was just letting someone pass by. Following this exchange, he said he saw the officer looking at him and at his car’s number plate.
7. Mr X said he found the interaction distressing, given he had complained about her the previous year, and he felt the officer’s actions were deliberately obstructive, provocative and intimidating. He says her conduct was similar in his previous interaction with her which led to his previous complaint. He believes the officer recognised him from their previous exchange and that this was the reason for her actions.
8. The Council investigated. It noted the interaction between the officer and Mr X was very brief and comprised of a short exchange of words which were in line with those it would expect in the officer carrying out her role. It noted no enforcement action was taken, nor was there any confrontation or aggressive or inappropriate language or behaviour. If found no evidence to support Mr X’s view the officer recognised him from the year before and noted the high volume of vehicles and drivers officers encounter on a daily basis.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We must focus our limited public resources on investigating those complaints where a person has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of alleged fault by a body in our jurisdiction. This is not the case here.
10. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint and about its response to his subject access request and freedom of information request. We do not consider complaint handling issues in isolation where we are not also considering the substantive matter. This is because it is not a good use of limited public funds to do so. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his information requests. This is because complaints about data matters are best considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Mr X says he has raised his concerns there. We will not also consider them.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter has not caused him any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman