Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of her complaints against a neighbour who is also a councillor. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council and police have refused to help her following her reports to them about harassment from a neighbour who is also a councillor. She says she felt forced to move home and incurred costs in doing so and that she should receive an apology from the Council with the neighbour removed from their role as councillor.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Ms B and reviewed the information she and the Council provided. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B and her neighbour, X, had a poor relationship. She complained to the Council about harassment from X and X had complained about noise nuisance from her. X is a local councillor.
5. Following contact from Ms B in October 2019, the Council wrote to her to advise that any instances of harassment and threats should be dealt with by the police and that it understood she had already reported X’s behaviour to the police.
6. Later in October, the Council wrote to Ms B to advise that because the dispute was a private one between neighbours, and did not involve X acting in their capacity as a councillor, it was not a matter which the Monitoring Officer could look at under the Members Code of Conduct. It also advised her that she would be notified of the outcome of its investigation into X’s complaints of noise nuisance against her.
7. Subsequently, Ms B moved to another part of the country and has cited the behaviour of her neighbour as a significant factor in deciding to do so.

Assessment

8. Ms B complained that X was harassing her and as this is a criminal matter the Council properly referred her to the police. Ms B says the police made several visits to her and spoke to X and that they have also attempted to access data stored remotely which Ms B provided to them.
9. As the dispute between Ms B and X was a neighbour dispute, and not one which involved X’s role as a councillor, the Council correctly advised Ms B that the matter was not one it could consider under the Code of Conduct.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman