Summary: Miss X complained about receiving a warning letter from the Council about a Community Protection Order. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council issuing a warning letter about serving a Community Protection Order for noise nuisance. She says she was not responsible for any noise or anti-social behaviour and that the letter should not have been issued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X received a warning notice from the Council in 2018 saying that it was investigating complaints about noise nuisance from her property. Officers told her they had received 23 separate complaints over a period of time and that a visit to her home had indicated that she was the source.
5. Miss X says she had an ongoing neighbour dispute with one of the parties responsible for the complaints and that she had involved the Police. Miss X has since made a complaint about the Police to its regulatory body. She says the Council should have sent a courtesy letter and not taken such draconian action.
6. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether or not a nuisance or anti-social behaviour was being created at a particular location. Councils have a duty to investigate complaints about nuisance and take action where necessary. We would not criticise a council for carrying out its duties and responsibilities. If the Council had served a Community Protection Order Miss X would have been able to exercise her right of appeal against it within 21 days if she disputed the circumstances.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’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.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman