• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to act appropriately following his report of anti social behaviour due to a person, delivering a free advertising magazine, having knocked very loudly on his door. There is no fault and the Council has not caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to act against a company which caused him upset when its delivery person knocked very loudly 5 times on his door. Mr X says this disturbed his peace and comfort. He is apprehensive it may happen again.

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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. I have considered the Council’s replies to his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the delivery person abused his door knocker whilst he was watching TV. He says: ‘I have suffered as a result of extremely loud door banging. It could happen again. The Council could act but refuses to see the unpleasantness of my experience. Therefore, the Council has caused me injustice’.
5. The Council does not consider the incident of door knocking is anti social behaviour. It says door knocking of itself is not anti social behaviour. The advertising magazine is delivered monthly and no one else has reported a problem. The Council contacted the delivery company this year and in 2016 also drew the issue to its attention. It says it cannot do more.

Analysis

6. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
   • 1. The Ombudsman investigates administrative fault causing injustice. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice by its decision not to treat his reported problem as anti social behaviour. Door knocking by delivery workers is part of normal life. It is not a nuisance or anti social. Mr X’s description of what happened does not indicate anything exceptional.
     2. There is no fault by the Council. The Council’s complaint replies explain its position and that it acted on behalf of Mr X, in contacting the advertiser, which it was not obliged to do.
     3. It is not a good use of limited public resources to investigate such a minor matter.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to act on his report of antisocial behaviour due to a private delivery person knocking very loudly on his door. There is no fault and the Council has not caused Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page