Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop a neighbour causing her nuisance, delayed serving an abatement notice, and failed to communicate with her properly. The Council took action and apologised to Ms X for not replying to some of her communications. There is no ongoing injustice and it is not a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to stop a neighbour causing her nuisance. It delayed serving an abatement notice on the neighbour who caused her nuisance by having large bonfires to burn tree and commercial waste. Ms X says the neighbour has caused nuisance by holding late night bonfire parties with large groups of people. Ms X says the actions of the neighbour, who wants to develop the land, amount to harassment and he has interfered with her property. She also says his land is ‘a tip’. Ms X says the Council has continually failed to deal properly with her complaints and has thereby added to her distress and anxiety.
2. Ms X complains the Council has not always communicated with her appropriately, including since she raised the recent problems in March 2020. Officers failed to reply to emails and telephone messages. In relation to her reasonable adjustments and equality law the Council has sent information in an inappropriate format. Ms X says the Council failed to deal properly with her freedom of information request. Ms X says the Council has added to her distress and harmed her health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. 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
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered Ms X’s information, comments, and replies to our draft decision statement dated 19 January. I have discussed the complaint with Ms X by telephone. The Council has supplied the complaint correspondence and a copy of the abatement notice. I have considered the Council’s website information on planning applications and decisions on the neighbouring property since early 2020. Ms X and the Council have provided photographs.

Back to top

What I found

9. Ms X considers it significant that the neighbouring developer is a non-resident owner. She says his ‘woodland garden’ is the size of a football pitch. It has turned into a barren bonfire site and is unrecognisable from the position in 2000.
10. Ms X has reported various concerns to the Council about the actions of the neighbour including:
11. Bonfires/Parties - Ms X says since August 2018 the neighbour has held more than 6 bonfire parties. She says the bonfires are huge with flames over 20 foot high. There is reference to fires on 9-11 November 2018, one in 2019, 31 January-2 February 2020 plus 6 March, 7 May, and 23 July 2020. Ms X says they were very large and a threat to her property. On one occasion she called the fire brigade. She tells me she went to a hospital’s accident and emergency due to the impact of fumes on her health condition. She says her dog chewed the remnant of a firework. In 2019 her car tyre was punctured from a smashed bottle at the entrance to her drive. On 3 September 2020, Ms X sent the Council two long emails. One includes a description of parties in the past (dates not given) involving 50 or more people, late hours and sometimes with security on the door. At the time, the premises were not unoccupied. Ms X says she reported problems to the Council on 6 March 2020 but it took over 6 months to serve an abatement notice. She says the developer has burnt non-household waste.
12. The condition of trees/land protected by tree preservation orders (TPO’s). Ms X says the neighbour has repeatedly tried to cut back trees. The condition of the neighbouring land is a ‘tip’ and not what it was. She says it has an impact on the conservation area.
13. Interference with her property - Hoarding put up in relation to development work and attached/drilled into her wall. Ms X tells me the developer has blocked an access behind one of her buildings which means it is not accessible for maintenance.
14. Cameras – Ms X says the neighbour has a camera on his hoarding which can film the highway and will record her leaving her property. Ms X says she has installed security cameras and a new doorbell on the advice of the police.
15. Harassment - Ms X says she has recently reported to the police a stalking incident and has made a statement about it. Ms X says she is faced with ongoing harassment.
16. Ms X says on 2 March 2020 the police visited her requiring that she move vehicles from her drive because the neighbour wanted to do work on the trees. Ms X says the Council told her it had not yet given permission for the works. She says the neighbour gave false information to the police. Ms X told the Council she reported this incident/alleged harassment to the police and contacted the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
17. Water ingress to her land – during this complaint Ms X has provided photographs of water on her patio. She says the neighbour’s development work may have affected the land level and caused a problem. The Council says it has not received a complaint from Ms X and it will consider the issue if she provides details.
18. Council’s communication/Freedom of Information - Ms X says officers have failed to respond to her. She says the Council failed to give her proof that it had visited the site in January 2020. She had to chase the environmental health officer about the abatement notice and was not provided with a copy. Ms X says she has complained to the Information Commissioner about the Council not providing all requested information and about the neighbour’s camera.
19. Ms X feels the Council’s action or inaction makes things worse. Ms X says she once needed a pain injection from her doctor due to Council caused distress. She has said the Council is misogynistic and is guilty of discriminatory treatment.
20. The Council’s complaint replies to Ms X’s sent in September and October 2020 say:
1. The Council had visited the site. It served an abatement notice, for statutory nuisance, on the neighbour dated 9 September regarding the bonfires. The neighbour has said he will not have further bonfires. The covering letter advises the neighbour to remove waste using a waste disposal contractor. The Council’s email to Ms X dated 31 July had said it expected to serve the notice the following week.
2. The Council says it will refer Ms X’s concern about the condition of the garden and a concern about groundworks close to protected trees to the enforcement team. It advised Ms X on reporting future nuisance to the enforcement team. It has explained the neighbour has not breached planning control by erecting the hoarding which may remain in relation to proposed building work.
3. The Council apologised to Ms X for not replying to all her contacts and for how an officer had spoken to her during a telephone conversation. Also, for any frustration caused. It says it has supplied Ms X with information.
21. The Council’s website shows that it confirmed with the neighbour via a certificate of lawful development that he did not require planning permission to build a single storey rear extension. In late 2020 the Council refused planning permission for a large extension and other development because of harm to the conservation area. In early 2020 the Council granted the neighbour planning permission to do minor works on trees protected by tree preservation orders (TPO’s). The Council is currently dealing with further applications for an extension and work on the TPO trees.
22. The Council tells me that it has not had reports of bonfires or needed to take enforcement action since it served the abatement notice last September. It has indicated to Ms X that it could not act against the neighbour’s camera.
23. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman on 28 July 2020. Her reasonable adjustments are that we write to her in large type, in double spacing, and provide a written copy. Ms X has difficulty sitting at a computer for lengthy periods due to her health. She does communicate with agencies via email.

Analysis

24. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaints for the following reasons:
25. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate the Council’s handling of Ms X’s complaint about the bonfires in 2020. At most two or three fires took place after the Council could have served the abatement notice. Since last July there has not been further incidents (bonfires or parties) and the Council did not need to consider taking enforcement action.
26. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing personal injustice. The Council has not caused Ms X injustice by how it responded to her concerns about the cameras, trees, or the condition of the land. Ms X’s photographs do not support her comments on the condition of the neighbour’s land or provide evidence of injustice. Ms X can report her concern about water ingress or a new problem to the Council which should consider information provided.
27. Ms X reported to the police her concern about what happened in early March 2020 (police request to remove vehicles from her drive) and an alleged recent stalking incident. We do not have jurisdiction to investigate police actions on crime and Ms X says she has had contact with the office for police conduct. There is no indication of fault by the Council and it would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate what happened last March.
28. Events before 28 July 2019 are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 5 above). Ms X complains late, outside the permitted period of 12 months, about earlier events such as the bonfire in 2018. Ms X could have complained sooner. There is no good reason to investigate what happened or the history of her communications with the Council.
29. The Council must deal with applications by the neighbour to develop the land or regarding the TPO trees. It refused planning permission on a recent application so there is no injustice to Ms X. Should the neighbour damage Ms X’s property or interfere with a right of access she would need to take advice about her private legal remedies.
30. There is no reason to investigate the Council’s communications with Ms X. The Council has apologised to Ms X for its communication failings and does not need to do more.
31. Complaints where Ms X has a legal remedy against the Council are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 6). I consider it reasonable for Ms X to consider her legal remedies if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury or discrimination. A court has the power to decide such claims and award damages.
32. It is reasonable for Ms X to pursue a complaint about freedom of information or data protection with the information commissioner (see paragraph 7). Ms X says she has done so. There is no personal injustice which we should investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

33. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop a neighbour causing her nuisance, delayed serving an abatement notice, and failed to communicate with her properly. The Council took action and apologised to Ms X for not replying to some of her communications. There is no ongoing injustice and it is not a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman