Summary: A woman complained the Council had treated her unfairly in its response to her neighbour’s allegations about her anti-social behaviour and counter-allegations she made against her neighbour. But we will not investigate this matter as part of the complaint has been made late, and there is no sign of any fault by the Council in other respects which has caused the woman a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complained that the Council had unfairly accused her of committing anti-social behaviour (ASB) following unfounded complaints by her neighbour (Ms Y), while ignoring her complaints about ASB by the same neighbour. Ms X felt the Council’s actions amounted to harassment and discrimination against her.

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 an investigation if, for example, 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. In particular 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

4. I considered the information Ms X provided with her complaint. I also gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view in her case. In addition I took account of the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X complained the Council had discriminated against her since 2018 in relation to a series of disputes she has had with Ms Y and her family, and in its response to allegations and counter-allegations regarding anti-social behaviour.
6. In particular, over the past three years or so Ms X and Ms Y have been in dispute about the erection of fencing on both sides of the boundary between their properties. In addition, Ms X has complained about Ms Y and her family because of abusive behaviour, smoking, littering, noise and use of CCTV. On her part Ms Y has also complained about Ms X concerning parking issues and noise.
7. Councils have the power to issue a Community Protection Notice (CPN) where someone’s persistent, unreasonable behaviour is having a detrimental effect on the local area. But before a CPN can be issued, the person must have been given a warning letter. If someone does not comply with a CPN they can be prosecuted.
8. Earlier this year the Council’s community wardens made several visits to Ms X’s property in response to her own complaints about ASB, and complaints made against her. On one occasion community wardens issued Ms X with a warning letter regarding noise saying that she could be served with a CPN if this was not abated.
9. Ms X subsequently complained to the Council and the Ombudsman that the Council was treating her allegations about ASB differently to those made by Ms Y, and she was being discriminated against in this respect.

Back to top

Analysis

10. But having considered all of the information provided in Ms X’s case, I have reached the view that we should not start an investigation of her complaint.
11. First, some of Ms X’s complaints relate to events in 2018 and 2019. But the law says normally we should not investigate complaints about issues a person has been aware of for more than 12 months before coming to us, unless there is good reason.
12. Ms X first complained to us about the Council in July 2019. At that point Ms X had not fully completed the Council’s own complaints procedure. Therefore in August 2019 we referred her case back to the Council and closed her complaint.
13. Ms X said she did not receive a further complaint response from the Council. However she did not complain to us again until November 2020. I see no reason why Ms X could not have come back to us sooner than this if she did not hear further from the Council after August 2019. In the circumstances I consider the restriction on our jurisdiction regarding late complaints, which I refer to in paragraph 3, applies to Ms X’s complaint about her issues with the Council in 2018 and most of 2019.
14. As a result I have only looked at events in Ms X’s case since November 2019, which is 12 months before the date she made her second complaint to us.
15. In the circumstances I have not considered the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s historic allegations of ASB or those made against her. This includes the issues about boundary fences and related planning matters.
16. Second, I note that following Ms X’s new complaint to us the Council sent her a further complaint response, and it seems to me this response has satisfactorily addressed many of her complaint issues relating to the last 12 months or so.
17. In particular the Council provided a chronology of Ms X’s reports about ASB incidents and its response in each case. The Council also explained why it was unable to take action about some issues, for instance, noise from domestic rows, and it offered to pursue Ms X’s concerns about the CCTV with the police. In addition the Council pointed out that some of Ms X’s nuisance complaints related to other addresses in the area rather than Ms Y’s.
18. The Council did acknowledge it had made a mistake in its description of Ms X’s alleged ASB in the first CPN warning letter it gave her. But the Council pointed out it had quickly issued a correctly worded letter, and it apologised for its error.
19. The Council also explained the role of its community wardens and said they had followed appropriate procedures in their contacts with Ms X.
20. Ms X complained the recent CPN warning regarding her loud music was unjustified and the Council was unreasonably threatening enforcement action against her a second time. However the Council noted that the warning letter was issued after wardens had witnessed the noise and Ms X had refused to turn down her music.
21. But we are not in a position to verify what happened when the community wardens visited Ms X’s property, or to decide ourselves whether or not Ms X’s music was causing a nuisance to justify a CPN warning letter. In the circumstances I do not see we are likely to find evidence to warrant finding fault with the Council regarding these matters.
22. I note the Council also stressed that it had not actually issued a CPN and had not started any enforcement action against Ms X. The Council also pointed out the earlier CPN in Ms X’s case was issued by the police, so it was not responsible for that decision.
23. In addition, the Council referred to a letter sent to both parties saying that it and the police were working together to resolve the issues in question. The Council also made clear that it had no associations with Ms Y and her family and it had not treated them more favourably than Ms X.
24. In the circumstances I do not see there is sign of fault by the Council in the way it has dealt with ASB issues in Ms X’s case in the last year, which has caused her a significant injustice. In addition I am not convinced there is evidence of harassment or discrimination on the Council’s part.
25. Therefore I consider we do not have enough grounds to start an investigation of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

26. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has treated her unfairly in dealing with her neighbour’s reports about her anti-social behaviour and her counter-allegations concerning the same neighbour. This is because Ms X complained late about some of her complaint issues, and there is no sign that fault by the Council regarding more recent matters has caused her an injustice which warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman