Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to suspend enforcement action. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not suspend enforcement action despite him raising a complaint. He said the Enforcement Agency misrepresented statutory frameworks.
2. He said the Enforcement Agency did not respond to his Subject Access Request (SAR). He said he feels threatened and wants enforcement action to be suspended.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

(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 the Council did not pause enforcement action when he said the Enforcement Agency misrepresented its statutory framework. In its complaint response, the Council said it could not pause enforcement action because a warrant of control had been passed to the Enforcement Agency and there was no evidence of it exceeding its legal remit.
7. The Council acknowledged that the Enforcement Agency had incorrectly referred to the warrant of control as a liability order and apologised for its error.
8. Mr X said the Enforcement Agency did not fully respond to his SAR. The Council said that it had provided the information Mr X requested and if he was unhappy with the information provided, he could complain to the ICO.
9. We will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
• The Enforcement Agency set out its statutory powers, and the Council clarified any language that Mr X felt was misleading. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.
• The Council apologised that the Enforcement Agency had referred to a warrant of control as a liability order. This is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
• Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of actions or inactions of the Council. Any injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
• If Mr X is unhappy with the information provided following his SAR, this would be a matter for the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman