Outcome 27 Sept 2018 R
Outcome 27 Sept 2018 R
Mrr~_~_
By emaiJ: elt-· .<:If"V -,,,g@gmail.com
2ih September 2018
Dear Mr ~. 'tt
I refer to the letter dated 22nd August 2018 in which it Was confirrned that your complaint
had, been escalated to the final stage of the Council's complaints procedure. The issues
you have raised have been investigated which has included a review of the stage 1
response. This investigation has been undertaken independently of the officers that have
previously handled your complaint.
The enclosed investigating officer's report.details the findings of this investigation which'
consider has been correctly and fairly carried out inacc()rdance with the Council's
Feedback Policy.
If you are not satisfied with this response and the outcome of your complaint, you have the
right to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, whose contact details are as
follows:
Tel: 08456021983
Fax: 02476820001
I would like to thank you for bringing these issues to the Council's attention. This has been,
of necessity,aforrnal response driven by our Feedback Policy and procedures, designed to
ensure full, fair and impartial examination of concerns which arise. 1 am personally always
very keen to see how we can improve our services and learning from complaints is one
way of achieving this. I appreciate this may not be the response you had hoped for. 1 am
hoping that you will accept that this matter has had proper consideration.
5tage2CorporateCompJaint Investigation
I am satisfied that an enforcement letter was left by an Enforcement Agentina place where it was likely
to, and did, come to the attention of the debtor. The Agents used by the COlll1cH(Jacobs) discharged
their responsibilitiesinaccordance with the releVant regulations. The complaint is not upheld.
Sumrnaryofcomplaint:
A complaint was submitted by letter dated 1 July 201S (misdated 2016) and (:oncerned the delivery of ih
an enforcement notice dated 10th July, which was delivered by a Jacobs Enforcement Agent toa
communal area, which serves the complainant's flat,
The complainal1t expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome of the stage 1 investigation by letter dated
20th August 2018. Further assertions were made relating in part to the complaint challenging the
objectivity of the investigating officer and his acceptance of the Enforcing Agent's account of events.
The investigating officer spoke to relevant personnel, read supporting documentation and considered
the case summaryreferel1ced in his letter of 8th August2018 to the complainant.
Findings:
I have spoken to the investigating officer, reviewed the supporting documentation, reviewed the video
evidence from Jacobs and find that the complaint is notupheld for the reasons previously given.
Regarding the subsequent communications from the complail1ant challenging the objectivity of the
investigating officer, he appropriately sought an explanation from Jacobs and this was given. The video
Was reviewed as part of the Stage 2 review and was consistel1twiththeir report.
I see no justification for a separate investigation of the complaint regarding MrSmith, lam satisfied that
he correctly concluded not to uphold the complaint having followed appropriate steps and having
reached a balanced and reasonable conclusion.
The Complainant is kl10wn to the Council. Spurious and cavalier comments have been made agaInst
professionals and officers, both within the Council and other organisations.
These comments make Cl veiled reference to criminal activity and allege professional misconduct and
have been formaUyconsidered by the Monitoring Officer. The Monitoring Officer has determined that
the allegations are unfounded and therefore there will not be any further enquiry. As the complainant
has elected to include other organisations within the distribution of theseallegationsj the Council wlH
trust them to consider as they deem appropriate.
Helen Isaacs
Director;
Sharon Wroot