The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s issuing of a Community Protection Warning letter to Mr X. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters concerning its decision to issue him with a Community Protection Warning letter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 may decide not to continue with 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council received a complaint from a neighbour about Mr X. In response it sent Mr X a standard Community Protection Warning letter which explained a complaint had been received and what might happen if further complaints were made.
Mr X complained to the Council about its decision to issue him with the warning letter and said it should have spoken to him first. He also complained about communication he sent to the case officer which did not always receive a response.
The Council explained that at the time of the events complained about, during the COVID pandemic, its policy was that officers should continue to work at home and only make visits if absolutely necessary. However, it accepted that Mr X should have been spoken to on the phone about the complaint first to allow him to put forward his version of events and it acknowledged its warning letter had caused him distress. It confirmed the letter would be removed from the Council’s database. It apologised for communication from Mr X that had not been responded to by officers.
While Mr X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint, an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to usefully add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a significantly different outcome.
Mr X says his human rights under Human Rights legislation were breached. While it does not appear that these rights come into play in relation to this complaint, it is for the courts and not the Ombudsman to decide whether a breach has occurred.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman