Summary: Ms A and Mrs B complained about the Council’s handling of their anti-social behaviour complaints. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would not be able to achieve the outcomes Ms A and Mrs B want us to achieve.

The complaint

1. Ms A complained about:
• Councils handling of her Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) complaints.
• Misconduct of a council employee
• Councils decision not to install a disabled bay outside of her property
• Councils decision not to install a dropped kerb outside of her property
• Councils refusal to issue a blue badge to Ms A’s mother
• Councils decision not to enforce against her neighbour after she reported planning permission breaches

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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Ms A and Mrs B.
6. Ms A had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.
7. I considered replies to my enquiries from the Council.

Background

8. Mrs B and her daughter, Ms A, live in a property and they have been reporting their neighbour’s antisocial behaviour to the Council on and off for the last 15 years.
9. In 2015 Ms A filed for a civil injunction against her neighbour.
10. Ms A says that because of her neighbour threatened the witnesses she could not get the injunction.
11. Ms A has been complaining to the Council about a range of issues such as: noise and smoke pollution, anti-social behaviour including verbal altercations and property damage.
12. Ms A’s neighbour has made counter allegations against Ms A and Mrs B.
13. The Council’s ASB team offered mediation service to Ms A, Mrs B and their neighbour. Ms A said that she and her mother were not comfortable with sitting with her neighbour in the same room and declined the offer.
14. In 2015 the Council sent Acceptable Behaviour Contracts to both Mrs B and her neighbour.
15. Mrs B’s neighbour signed her contract, but Mrs B chose not to sign hers because she said she has done nothing wrong.
16. In 2017 Ms A decided to move away from her mother’s home as the relationship with their neighbour was causing her stress and anxiety.
17. In December 2019 Mrs B’s neighbour complained about Mrs B breaching her privacy.
18. In August 2020 Mrs B complained to the planning department about her neighbour’s summer house and scaffold structure.
19. In June 2020 Council issued Mrs B with a Community Protection Notice warning.
20. In June 2020 Mrs B complained to the Council about the air pollution her neighbour living two doors down was creating.
21. In June the Council confirmed it wrote a warning letter the Mrs B’s neighbour telling them of consequences should they continue to provide smoke nuisance.
22. In July Mrs B complained about the owner of the property next door not being a licensed private landlord.
23. Mrs B also raised concerns to the Council about her driveway being blocked by cars despite having a dropped kerb.
24. The Council responded to Mrs B’s concerns, but she is not happy with the responses and has complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

25. This complaint stretches over different service areas of the Council and in my assessment, I have considered them separately.
26. Mrs B complained to planning and building regulations department about the scaffold structure and the summer house in her neighbour’s garden.
27. A planning enforcement officer visited Mrs B’s neighbour and confirmed that both the summer house and the scaffold structure are compliant and fall under the Permitted Development.
28. It is worth mentioning now that any formal enforcement action is discretionary and before taking any action the Council must decide if it is expedient to do so.
29. On this occasion the Council confirmed that they would not look to formally enforce against Mrs B’s neighbour.
30. Mrs B also complained about the Council issuing her with an Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC).
31. It is my understanding the Council issued the contract in 2015, and because of the 12-month complaint time limit I consider this aspect of the complaint late. I also see no good reason why I should exercise discretion to disapply the rule detailed in paragraph four.
32. Mrs B contacted the Council to complain about a letter she received with a Community Protection Notice Warning (CPNW).
33. The Council explained that this is result of her neighbour’s complaint that Mrs B pointed her CCTV cameras and flood lights at their garden.
34. Mrs B says that she had the cameras installed by a professional and a police officer confirm that they are legally positioned, but she has not responded to Council’s enquiries about this.
35. Because the Council could not gain access to her property to check the position of the cameras it relied on the photos provided by Mrs B’s neighbour. It then decided to tell her of what enforcement action it could take against her.
36. Additionally, the Council said the evidence Mrs B provided against her neighbour included images and videos of underage children living next door. It explained the images raised a safeguarding concern. This is why the Council decided to send Mrs B a letter warning her that if she did not reposition her cameras the Council could take further enforcement action. Ms A said that the images the Council is referring to were taken with her phone camera, and not the CCTV her mother installed at her home.
37. Mrs B raised concern over the conduct of the Council officer who sent her the CPNW letter.
38. We do not consider complaints about conduct of individual council employees as we can only look at the administrative functions of the council as a corporate body.
39. Mrs B complained about Council’s decision not to install a disabled bay outside of her drive so that other cars would not be able to block her can in her drive.
40. The Council explained that it does not consider this to be a suitable solution as a disabled bay would allow anyone with a blue badge to park there. This could still result in Mrs B being blocked in her drive.
41. The Council said the correct action is for Mrs B to call the enforcement hotline each time her drive is illegally blocked. It also said, that to be able to issue a PCN to the offending car at least one whole wheel must be positioned over the lowered kerb.
42. Mrs B complained about Councils decision not to extend the dropped kerb outside of her property. The Council confirmed that Ms A has not made a dropped kerb application. The Council will consider all applications, however it said that because there is a driveway with a dropped kerb already at the location the application for an extension of a dropped kerb is unlikely to be successful.
43. Mrs B also complained about the owner of the neighbouring property. She says he is an illegal landlord.
44. The Council have confirmed to her that this complaint was investigated but it cannot share any details of the investigation with Mrs B because of the data protection laws.
45. We would not investigate this aspect of the complaint in its own right as I do not consider there to be sufficient injustice to Mrs B resulting from the allegation she made against her neighbour.
46. For the same reason as named above, we would not investigate the complaints handling in its own right.
47. Finally, the Council has again invited Mrs B to enter mediation with her neighbour. It explained that it will not take any enforcement action, including eviction of Mrs B’s neighbour unless it feels there is no other option.
48. Mrs B said that she wants: her neighbour to be evicted; apology form the council and the owner of the property next door; to be issued with an blue badge; the Council to never contact her about accusations her neighbour makes against her.
49. We would not be able to achieve those outcomes for Mrs B.
50. The Council must investigate all reports of nuisance, even if there is a history of disputes between neighbours.
51. The Council must carry out an assessment and decide is Mrs B’s mother is eligible for the blue badge. It confirmed that it closed the latest application because it could not get all the required information. Should Ms A’s mother wish to be considered for a blue badge she can submit another application to the Council. If she disagrees with the application outcome, she would be able to appeal it under Councils internal procedure.
52. With regards to the enforcement action to be taken against Mrs B neighbours, the Council explained to Mrs B that the next step in resolving the dispute with her neighbours is to start mediation to address the behaviours that each of them are alleging. In response to my enquiries the Council confirmed it is still their view that mediation can have a positive effect on the relationship between Ms A, Mrs B and her neighbours.

Back to top

Final decision

53. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we would not be able to achieve the outcomes Ms A and Mrs B want us to achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman