Summary: Ms X complained about receiving a Community Protection written warning from the Council which she believes was unreasonable. 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 Ms X, complains about the Council issuing a Community Protection warning letter to her. She says she has a long history of dispute with her neighbours which has resulted in successful court action by her against them in the past. She wants the Council to withdraw the letter.

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 Ms X submitted with her complaint and she has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X received a Community Written Warning letter in 2018. She says her neighbours in the flat above her are also her landlords and that their complaints about her actions are unjustified. She says she has evidence of anti-social behaviour by her previous and her current landlord and that the complaints made to the Council were false.
5. The Council informed Ms X that she had been given previous advice not to bang on her ceiling in response to noise from children playing. It arranged for a mediation meeting between her and her neighbours but says she declined to attend the meeting. The letter was served in response to current issues of noise form her flat and was not related to previous altercations with her neighbours.
6. 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. The Council is the authority responsible for acting against noise and anti-social behaviour in its area and it has the power to issues warnings and notices as it sees fit.
7. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the merits of a council’s decision where there is no evidence of fault in the procedures it followed.

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