You are on page 1of 2

North East Lincolnshire Council

Stage 2 Corporate Complaint Investigation


SharonWroot- Finance, Operations and Resources

I Council Tax
~ Di~ector"Of
Investlgatmg ·cer:
"~;MH;'''':';';'~';':',.;.o..;;.;..;;;..;.:;.;;..:.~.;,,;.;.,;.,~,,;..;;..,'':'':';'';';';'_- -..
.~. ",",-,~':"~.,__ _ ~~_,....,..,;..,.,,,,-~_:
-.:. _: .,.,.~-"":-,,,,,,,_,.,..,,,,,:-
..~ __ - ~'''''''-~---';''-~''~'~~''''''';~~'~''~'''~-------''--'~'.'~--'-',-'-

Complaint Reference: I NElCj10117j1819

Final decision of investigating officer:

I am satisfied that an enforcement fetter was left by an Enforcement Agent in a place where it was likely
to, and did, come to the attention of the debtor. The Agents used by the CouncH (Jatobs) discharged
their responsibilitiesinactordancewith the relevant regulations. The complaint is not upheld.

Sumrnaryof complaint:

A complaint was submitted by letter dated 17th July 2018 (misdated 2016} and concerned the delivery of
an enforcement notice dated 10th July, which was delivered by a JacobsEnforcement Agent toa
communal area, which serves the complainant's flat,

The complainant expressed dissatisfactiol'l with the outcome of the stage investigation by letter dated 1
20th August 2018. Further assertions were mad~ relating in part to tbe complaint challenging the
objectivity oftheinvestigating officer and his acceptance of the Enforcing Agel1t'saccount of events.

How thecornplaint was considered:

The investigating officer spoke to relevant personnel, read supporting documentation and considered
the case summary referenced in his letter of 8th August 2018 to the complainant.


I have spoken to the investigating officer, reviewed the supporting documentation, reviewed the video
evidence from Jacobs and find that the complaint is not upheld for the reasons previously given.

Regarding the subsequent communications from the complainant challenging the objectivity of the
investigating officer, he appropriately sought an explanation fromJacobs and this was given. The video
was reviewed as partofthe Stage 2 revieW and was consistent with their report.

I see no justification fora separate investigation of the complaint regarding Mr Smith, 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 known to the Cotmdl. Spurious and cavalier comments have been madeagaillst
professionals and officers, both within the Council and other organisations.
These comments make a veiled reference to criminal activity and allege professional misconduct ana
have been formaHy considered 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 these allegations .. the Coundl will
trust them to consider as they deem apprOpriate,

Details of final recommendations:

There are no recommendations in respect ofthe complaint which is not upheld.

Investigators <lecision on behalf ofthe Chief Executive:

Helen lsaacs


Sharon Wroot