Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Police and Crime Panel considered his complaint about the Police and Crime Commissioner’s conduct. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Police and Crime Panel has failed to appropriately investigate his complaint about the Police and Crime Commissioner’s conduct.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. The Police and Crime Panel’s complaints procedure sets out what complaints the Panel will handle and its procedures for how it considers complaints.
7. The procedure says the Panel’s legal advisor will initially assess each complaint. The legal adviser can, in certain circumstances, decide not to refer a complaint to the Panel for resolution. In these cases, they can handle it as they see fit, or decide to take no action at all. The circumstances where the Panel does not need to deal with a complaint include “a complaint which is vexacious, oppressive or otherwise an abuse of process for dealing with complaints”.
8. In this case, Mr X was dissatisfied with a complaint response received from the Police and Crime Commissioner. He complained to the Panel about the Police and Crime Commissioner’s conduct, namely that they had signed a false statement.
9. The Panel’s legal advisor considered Mr X’s complaint. They concluded the Police and Crime Commissioner had appropriately investigated Mr X’s concerns and provided him with an investigation report and complaint response setting out the findings and conclusions. They concluded this did not constitute signing a false statement, and that Mr X’s complaint did not relate to the Police and Crime Commissioner’s conduct. They decided the Panel would not investigate, on the grounds that the complaint was an abuse of process for dealing with complaints.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Panel’s legal advisor appropriately considered Mr X’s complaint and reached a decision that it would not investigate. Although Mr X disagrees with the decision, the decision appears in line with the process set out in its complaint’s procedure. The legal advisor is entitled to reach a decision in line with the Panel’s procedures and we cannot question a decision if there is no fault in how the decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman