Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s actions in issuing her with a Community Protection Warning. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council acted with malice, discriminated against her and breached her human rights when it issued her with a Community Protection Warning (CPW) which contains false allegations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments she made.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B lives next door to neighbours with whom she has a very poor relationship. There is a long and involved history of allegations and counter-allegations involving anti-social behaviour from both parties.
6. In 2018 Ms B made a complaint to the Council involving its failure to take enforcement action against her neighbours under its anti-social behaviour powers. The Council investigated the complaint but found no evidence to uphold it.
7. Subsequently, following complaints from her neighbours about her behaviour, the Council issued Ms B with a CPW under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The warning explained the Council was satisfied Ms B’s behaviour was having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality and it set out the actions she was to stop if she wanted to avoid the issuing of a Community Protection Notice.
8. Unhappy that she had been issued with the warning letter, Ms B complained to the Council. The complaint was dealt with as a Stage 2 complaint. The Council explained it would not be revisiting the issues raised in her previous complaint. lt looked at her claim that her human rights had been breached but pointed out that others have the same rights. It satisfied itself that the Community Safety Team had acted appropriately in issuing Ms B with a CPW and confirmed that it would not be suspending officers because she disagreed with their actions and decisions. It found no evidence to uphold her complaint and no evidence to suggest her earlier anti-social behaviour complaint should be reopened.

Assessment

9. Ms B’s ongoing dispute with her neighbours has involved both the Council and the police. The Council has properly investigated her complaints about its inaction in connection with her complaints about her neighbours’ anti-social behaviour and about its decision to issue her with a CPW as a result of her own behaviour.
10. Before issuing the CWR, the Council sought legal advice and took the action in conjunction with the Police following a review of all the complaints received. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to review the merits of a council’s decision no matter how strongly a complainant may disagree with it.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Ms B has said the Council failed to investigate her complaints about her neighbours and that it failed to take into account the evidence she had provided. However, the Council’s response to Ms B’s 2018 complaint makes clear this was not the case. It asked her for more detailed information to aid its investigation and viewed photographs and video she provided, it contacted the Police to request copies of relevant logs and put Ms B’s allegations to her neighbours whose responses were fed back to her.
12. Ms B also says the Council failed to address the matters she had raised concerning the state of her neighbours’ garden, a rat infestation and a planning issue about garden screening. However, the Council’s 2018 complaint response directly addresses these issues in some detail.
13. Ms B says the Council did not speak to witnesses who would have supported her allegations. The Council has explained to her that it would not solicit complaints or accept hearsay evidence. However, its officer did speak to different neighbours following a particular incident and, because of the level of complaints received from both Ms B and her neighbours, it carried out an anti-social behaviour survey in her road but none of the feedback received supported her complaints.
14. Ms B says she had been told that both she and her neighbours would receive CPWs and that she had been asked for a meeting to discuss matters. The meeting did not take place and instead Ms B was issued with the CPW. However, the Council was under no obligation to meet with her to discuss the action it planned to take.
15. Ms B’s comments about typing errors with regards to the addresses and postcodes in the CPW she received are noted but do not require investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman