Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an alleged cover up by the Council and a failure to follow its complaints procedure. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions. And we do not consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has lied to protect his neighbour who is also a Council employee. He also says the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure.

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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X contacted the police about his neighbour’s video doorbell, which he says records activity at his front door, and is spying on him.
6. In December, Mr X received a letter from the Council’s community safety department team. This is on paper displaying both the Council and Thames Valley Police logos. It also includes the name and title of the community safety officer and police community support officer. The letter confirms the Council is satisfied the device attached to his neighbour’s front door is fit for purpose.
7. In January Mr X complained to the Council, concerned because the letter was hand delivered. He says this concerns him because:
• his neighbour is employed by the Council;
• and access to his letter box is via a secure door with key access only

He says the Council is ‘covering up’ his neighbour’s actions.

8. The Council’s reply under stage 1 of its complaints’ procedure says that it decided to hand deliver the letter as this was a quick and efficient way to respond. And the officer had been able to access the building during enquiries about a separate matter. It confirmed it considers the video doorbell fit for purpose. And advised that if Mr X considers his neighbour to be harassing him or breaching the leasehold agreement, then he should contact the Police, the building management company or seek legal advice.
9. Being dissatisfied with the response Mr X escalated his complaint. The Council replied to his concerns at stage 2 and 3 of the complaint process. It confirmed it had nothing to add to his repeated concerns about the way the letter from the community safety team was hand delivered. And it advised him to seek legal advice if he remained concerned about the legality of the neighbour’s video doorbell.

Assessment

10. While we aim to help people where we can, and it is appropriate to do so, the Local Government Ombudsman cannot investigate every complaint it receives. The law places restrictions on our work and we operate with limited resources. That means we can only look at the most significant and serious complaints.
11. To decide which complaints the Ombudsman can look at, we carry out an initial assessment of every complaint using this ‘Assessment Code’
12. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider. This means that we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the service provider.
13. We will be less likely to investigate a complaint where:
• There is not enough evidence of fault.
• The complaint is simply an expression of discontent about an unpopular or contentious decision which has been made without fault.
• It would not be appropriate to investigate most of the complaint, and only smaller, marginal issues remain.
14. We are also less likely to investigate a complaint where there is no achievable or realistic remedy, or no prospect that we will achieve the result that the complainant seeks.
15. Mr X says the Council has lied about the reason for the letter being hand delivered in December. And that it is ‘covering up’ for its employee. I have not seen any evidence to support this claim. The Council responded to his complaint, it has reviewed his complaint and responded at stage 2 and 3 of its complaints’ procedure. It has advised Mr X to seek legal action or contact the management company of his building if he considers he is being harassed or the neighbour is breaching the terms of the lease.
16. Mr X also complains the Council failed to provide him with information about its complaints procedure. However, he says found this information online and has been able to complain.
17. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we not dealing with the substantive issue. This is because we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant because of any failings in the complaints process alone to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we do not consider that Mr X has suffered any significant personal injustice because of the Council’s actions. And it is unlikely we will find fault in the way it responded to his concerns.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman