Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s response to her complaints about anti-social behaviour in a dispute with her neighbours. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about a Council officer whom she says made allegations about her being a perpetrator in anti-social behaviour and made threats that she could face court action. She also disagreed with the outcome of the Council’s investigation of her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mrs X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs X says she had been involved in a neighbour dispute for the past decade. In 2020 the Council arranged a meeting with a mediation service to try to resolve the issues. Mrs X participated but would not sign an agreement which stated that she was the perpetrator of unfounded allegations about her neighbour.
6. In April 2020 the Council’s anti-social behaviour officer wrote to Mrs X and closed the case. Mrs X complained that he had made allegations that she was a liar and that he had threatened her with court action if she did not change her behaviour. The Council investigated her complaint but did not uphold it. It said the officer had followed the procedure correctly and that whilst she may disagree with the conclusions of his letter this was not fault or incorrect.
7. The Council informed Mrs X in July 2019 that it would consider serving a Community Protection Notice if she did not change her behaviour.
8. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body and question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and where we find fault in that process, we then determine whether or not it has caused the complainant a significant injustice. In this case the Council gave its view on Mrs X’s involvement in the case and this was a decision it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman