London Borough of Lewisham (20 010 735)
Category : Environment and regulation > Antisocial behaviour
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 18 Mar 2021
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to respond properly to his complaints about the behaviour of his neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation by us would find fault and the police are better placed to deal with complaints about criminal activity.
The complaint
- Mr X complained that during 2020 the Council did not respond properly to his complaints about the behaviour of his neighbour. He said as a result he and his family continue to suffer distress as a result of the neighbour’s criminal and anti-social activities.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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)
- 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, or
- there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I read Mr X’s complaint and the correspondence from the Council’s complaints procedure.
- Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making this final decision.
What I found
- Mr X had concerns about his neighbour’s activities, some of which he considered to be criminal and some of them having a direct impact on his health and wellbeing.
- The Council had had previous contact with Mr X about similar concerns before 2020. The Council had liaised with the police at that point.
- During 2020 Mr X had further contact with the Council’s Crime, Enforcement and Regulation team. A Council officer discussed Mr X’s concerns with him. Mr X expected the Council to continue to be involved and to liaise with a number of other organisations to combat his neighbour’s activities. However the Council did not consider it had grounds to do this.
- Neither the Council nor the police found evidence of criminal or anti-social behaviour by the neighbour.
- In its complaints procedure the Council accepted it had failed to respond to some emails Mr X had sent and apologised for this. However, it considered the Council had investigated Mr X’s concerns as far as it could. The Council explained it did not consider it necessary to carry out the technical investigations Mr X considered were warranted. It explained the police, rather than the Council, would take the lead where crime was suspected.
- Mr X was unhappy the Council would not progress his concerns in the way he considered it should. However, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered Mr X’s concerns and an investigation by us is unlikely to find fault. The police are better placed to deal with Mr X’s complaints about criminal activity.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by us would find fault and the police are better placed to deal with
Mr X’s complaints about criminal activity.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman