The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s investigation of nuisance complaints raised against her, causing her and her family distress. We find no fault in the Council’s decision to investigate but we find fault in how it communicated with Mrs X. We recommend it provides Mrs X with an apology and payment for distress. Further that it acts to prevent recurrence.
The complaint
Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to investigate her based on vexatious complaints raised by her neighbour. She says her and her family have suffered distress due to the constant scrutiny.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs X and I reviewed documents provided by Mrs X and the Council.
I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Environmental Protection Act 1990 The Council has a duty to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance e.g noise nuisance.
Principles of Good Administrative Practice In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction “Principles of Good Administrative Practice”. This includes: Taking reasonable, timely decisions, based on all relevant considerations Stating the criteria for decision making and giving reasons for decisions What happened On 29 March 2021 the Council opened a case against Mrs X, following a neighbour complaint about dog mess and noise nuisance.
On 7 April a Council officer visited Mrs X, found no dog mess and asked her to provide evidence this was regularly cleared.
The Council then liaised with Mrs X’s landlord, a housing association.
On 12 May the Council visited Mrs X again, alongside the housing association. The Council officer told Mrs X he would monitor the situation for the next two weeks.
On 20 May the housing association wrote to Mrs X with reference to the joint visit with the Council. It noted Mrs X denied making noise. If said if it received further reports it would contact Mrs X to arrange to review her CCTV evidence. It would take no further action and the case was closed.
The Council officer recorded internally that he was closing the case on 27 May 2021. There is no evidence he informed Mrs X of his decision and reasons.
On 11 June Mrs X asked the Council for information as to how her dogs barking may amount to a nuisance and the officer replied to explain.
On 24 June 2021 the Council opened a new case against Mrs X, following a neighbour complaint of noise. The Council spoke to Mrs X about the complaint on the same day.
The Council’s records show it planned to install noise monitoring equipment at the neighbour address in August.
On 19 July the Council sent Mrs X some noise recordings so she could provide any CCTV evidence to challenge these. Mrs X explained she did not have CCTV recordings for the relevant time but she disputed any noise nuisance.
In August Mrs X asked the Council if it has closed the complaint. I have not seen evidence the Council replied.
In September the Council arranged a street survey.
At the end of September the Council reviewed records gathered by the noise monitoring equipment. The street survey was also completed.
In October the Council spoke to Mrs X about the possibility of mediation.
On 13 October Mrs X and her neighbour signed a neighbour agreement, both agreeing not to create noise issues.
Mrs X contacted the Council on 13 October to ask if the noise complaint was still open. The Council told her if a complaint was open for more than six months it would provide an update to say it was ongoing. Mrs X said she had not been told it was ongoing and so she assumed it was closed as it had been more than six months.
On 9 November Mrs X asked the Council officer if he had closed her case following the neighbour agreement. The officer told her he would keep the case open for a few more weeks until satisfied things had calmed down between the parties.
The Council received further complaints against Mrs X and suggested another visit.
On 15 December the Council officer visited Mrs X. He said there was no statutory nuisance and the complaints would be closed.
On 22 December 2021 the Council officer wrote to Mrs X. He said: The reported dog barking and loud music did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
The noises reported appeared to be from general living noise and differing lifestyles.
The Council would step down both complaints.
Complaint correspondence In June 2021 Mrs X complained to the Council. She resent this on 24 June. On review I note she detailed her contacts with the police, RSPCA, housing association, the Council’s social care team and others. She said her neighbour had threatened her and made false allegations about her to these bodies. She said no one was acting on this and she felt discriminated against.
In its stage one response the Council said: Mrs X had reported one incident of reckless driving which it told her to refer to the police. She had not made any other complaints to it about her neighbours.
It apologised it did not reply to two emails.
It had a duty to investigate complaints and gave her advice on evidence she may gather to refute allegations.
There was no evidence of discrimination.
Mrs X complained further in July.
In its stage two response the Council said: It had a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. This included reports that it considered new, or where the Council considered there to be a material change with the report.
She could contact the Ombudsman.
In November 2021 Mrs X further complained: As soon as lockdown lifted she received many complaints against her for no reason.
She had received threats.
The Council had investigated her over the last 8 or 9 months without explanation.
The Council officer did not respond to her calls.
Her children had suffered emotional distress because of the ongoing monitoring by the Council and harassment by her neighbour.
The Council told Mrs X she should contact the Ombudsman.
When I spoke to Mrs X she said the Council kept its noise investigation open for many months despite there being no evidence to support the allegations. This gave her neighbour chance to raise more complaints and harass her. Even now she was still unsure if the Council had closed its investigation.
Findings
I will investigate the complaint arising within 12 months of Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman. I will not look at matters arising before March 2021 as they are out of time. And I cannot look at recent or current matters as they are premature.
The Council has a duty to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance. Therefore, while I recognise Mrs X felt the complaints were unfounded, I cannot find the Council at fault for meeting it legal duties.
We expect councils to complete investigations in a timely manner, keeping both parties updated at regular intervals. We also expect councils to communicate key decisions, including the outcome of an investigation, to both parties in writing, with clear evidence based reasons for its view.
On review of the Council’s records it appears the Council carried out its investigations in a timely manner but it did not keep Mrs X updated and it did not clearly communicate to her key decisions and reasons, including the outcomes of its investigations, in a timely manner. This is fault. Mrs X suffered distress and uncertainty as a result. This is injustice.
However, I cannot say the Council’s fault caused a neighbour to raise further complaints. This is because the Council has no control over the actions of third parties. And because it would have been possible for the neighbour to raise new complaints whether or not the Council left a case open.
I note the Council wrote to Mrs X on 22 December explaining why it would close a noise complaint. However, I have not seen it wrote to her closing the complaint of dog mess and noise, as raised in March 2021. I will therefore recommend it do so.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice set out above I recommend the Council carry out the following actions within one month of the date of my decision: Provide Mrs X with an apology for its poor communications; Pay Mrs X £100 for distress and uncertainty; Write to Mrs X with its decision and reasons for closing the case raised on 29 March 2021.
Within three months
Take action to ensure its Environmental Health officers update parties on key actions and decisions during an investigation and inform the Ombudsman of the action taken.
Final decision
I find the Council at fault in how it communicated with Mrs X. The Council has accepted my recommendations I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman