London Borough of Newham

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council's actions in issuing a Fixed Penalty Notice. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council's actions.

The complaint

Mr X complains on behalf of Miss Y. The Council issued Miss Y with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for spitting, which she denies. Mr X says there is no video evidence of the alleged offence. He also says enforcement officers acting on the Council's behalf behaved in an intimidating manner and failed to take account of Miss Y's language barrier and vulnerabilities. Mr X says the incident caused Miss Y significant distress. He wants the Council to cancel the FPN, confirm that it has ceased all enforcement action, apologise to Miss Y, and review its enforcement procedures.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended) 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

The Council considered the complaint through its complaints process. It addressed the concerns about the enforcement officers' conduct, including the allegation they failed to take account of Miss Y's language barrier and vulnerabilities. It reviewed the body-worn camera footage and found no evidence the officers had acted inappropriately. The Council also explained to Mr X it did not need video evidence of the alleged offence to issue an FPN and determined the FPN had been properly issued.

We will not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the matters raised and explained why it did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision.

In any event, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. We cannot cancel an FPN or hold off any enforcement action. The appropriate route to challenge the issuing of an FPN is to decline to pay it and raise a defence should the matter proceed to the Magistrates' Court. It would be reasonable for Miss Y to raise a defence in court if she believes she is not liable for the offence.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Councils actions.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman