The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council has not resolved the issue of anti-social behaviour by his neighbours, including harassment, noise, and damage to property. He says it is significantly impacting his life and he would like the Council to collect all his evidence of the anti-social behaviour, and replace property that has been damaged by the neighbours.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; 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, including the Council’s complaint response.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B complained to the Council about harassment by his neighbours, noise and damage to his property. He said the Council hasn’t resolved any of the issues, and did not review all his evidence.
We are 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.
The Council considered the issues raised by Mr B and discussed them with Council and Police officers. It also reviewed video footage from Mr B, and it decided there was no evidence to support that any harassment or anti-social behaviour had taken place.
Mr B asked for a case review. Following this, the Council made attempts to help resolve the issues. The Community Safety Team and a member of the Police visited Mr B to discuss the issues further, but again found no supporting evidence of harassment or anti-social behaviour. It did provide the opportunity for Mr B to enter mediation with the neighbour, and to install CCTV, but it said the mediation was unsuccessful and Mr B declined the offer of CCTV installation.
Although the Council decided there is not sufficient evidence for it to take further action at this time, if Mr B identifies any new issues, it confirms it will investigate them. And if Mr B has further evidence for the Council to consider, it is for him to provide this to the Council. I recognise this is disappointing for Mr B but the Council cannot act without sufficient evidence. This is not evidence of fault by the Council, and there is no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
Mr B has also raised new concerns about the neighbour’s more recent actions but the Council has not had the opportunity to investigate these matters. Mr B should raise these matters with the Council first. Once the Council has had the opportunity to investigate the matter, Mr B may raise a new complaint if he is unhappy with its decision. He may then refer the matter to us to consider once the Council has issued a final response to it.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman