Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued a Community Protection Notice warning to him for burning fires in his back garden. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has already lifted the warning after identifying errors in its actions, and further investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council issued a Community Protection Notice warning to him for burning fires in his back garden. He says the Council accepted his neighbour’s version of events without investigation or evidence. He explains there is a long-running neighbour dispute, and the neighbours have been hostile towards him. Mr X also complains the Council did not properly respond to his requests for information, and its complaints process was not satisfactory.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman will not investigate a complaint if the Council has already provided a reasonable remedy.
3. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
7. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X and his neighbours have been involved in a dispute for several years. Mr X says his neighbours have been hostile towards him for a long time. The neighbours reported Mr X to the Council for burning fires in his back garden. The Council issued a Community Protection Notice (CPN) warning to Mr X in January 2019 because of this. Mr X was shocked and distressed by the warning.
9. Mr X complained to the Council. It investigated his complaint and subsequently lifted the warning because it found the wording used in the warning was not appropriate in the circumstances. It apologised for the confusion the warning had caused to Mr X, and gave him further explanations. It made recommendations to avoid the same mistake happening again.
10. Mr X remained unhappy. He disagreed with the Council’s reasoning for lifting the warning and was concerned it had followed the wrong processes before issuing it. He was concerned as the Council said it would review the situation should it receive further reports. He was also not satisfied with how the Council had responded to his information requests and complaints. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
11. The Council identified errors in its actions and it took suitable steps to recognise the impact those errors had on Mr X. There is no CPN warning in place any longer. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has already provided a remedy that recognises the injustice caused. Mr X is dissatisfied with the reasons the Council cited for lifting the warning, but this in itself does not justify further investigation, as we would be unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X given the warning has already been lifted.
12. Mr X’s concern the Council may review the situation also does not justify further investigation. We would expect the Council to keep such situations under review. Should it receive further reports, best practice would be for it to reconsider circumstances. Identifying fault in previous action by the Council does not mean Mr X is exempt from future action if it becomes necessary and is justified. We should not investigate Mr X’s complaint.
13. Mr X’s requests for information are a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office, as the body best placed to consider complaints about people’s information rights. There is not a good reason for us to investigate this instead, and so we cannot investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
14. We will not consider complaints about complaint-handling when we are not investigating the substantive complaint. Therefore, we will not consider Mr X’s concerns about how the Council considered his complaint.
15. It is open to Mr X to ask the Council for assistance with issues relating to anti-social behaviour from his neighbours.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman