Summary: Mr B says the Council does not support him despite being the victim of bullying and harassment by neighbours, instead it encourages complaints of anti-social behaviour about his household and does not deal with complaints his household makes. The Council is correct to investigate concerns it receives, regardless of the amount. It has not taken any unwarranted action against Mr & Mrs B. The Council failed to deal with concerns Mr & Mrs B raised, for which it has apologised, we recommend no further action. There was delay in its complaint investigation, but that was by agreement with Mr B. It was in communication with him throughout.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says the Council failed to deal with complaints he and his wife made of anti-social behaviour by their neighbours, yet actively encouraged the neighbours to raise unfounded complaints about them. Mr B says the Council has done nothing to help them or protect them from bullying and harassment by their neighbours. This has caused a lot of distress and sleepless nights for many years.
2. Mr B says the Council failed to properly deal with his complaint about its actions.
3. Mr B says the Council failed to send all information following a Subject Access Request.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the issues at paragraph one and two, the end of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating the issue at paragraph three.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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). Much of what Mr & Mrs B complain about are late complaints. I am considering the Council’s powers to deal with anti-social behaviour and its complaints process, not the specifics of its actions.
6. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)). I decided not to start an investigation about data issues, because there is another body better placed to investigate those concerns, as explained at paragraph 27.
7. 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)
8. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr B and by the Council in response to my enquiries.
10. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

11. For years Mr & Mrs B have been the subject of anti-social behaviour, planning and environmental health investigations by the Council. Mr & Mrs B say this is because their neighbours are bullying them by making false complaints. Mr B thinks the Council should support them to stop the bullying and harassment and allow them to live their lives peacefully without unnecessary visits.
12. Mr & Mrs B did not complain about the Council’s actions at the relevant time. But matters have built up over the years, until they feel they can take no more, and need some support from the Council.
13. On many occasions the result of the Council’s investigation has been to take no action, but there have been two occasions where the Council has issued a verbal warning to Mrs B in 2015 and an advice letter in 2018.
14. The constant allegations and investigations have made Mr & Mrs B feel victimised and bullied. So, they made a formal complaint to the Council in August 2020, they asked the Council to provide all data it holds about them and asked to meet and discuss the issues.
15. The Council asked whether Mr B would like to meet before or after he receives the data; Mr B responded to say he would like to meet after. The Council did attempt to arrange a meeting, but Mr B had further requests for information before he was able to meet.
16. After Mr B sae the information he raised new questions about both the data and the Council’s actions. In February 2021 a complaints officer responded to Mr B’s questions; Mr B remained unhappy, so the Council decided to proceed with its formal ‘stage 1’ complaint response. In internal e-mails in March 2021 the Council said it had offered a meeting which Mr B declined. It is unclear whether this is referring to the earlier meeting rejections or whether the Council had more recently again offered a meeting. The Council issued its formal response in March 2021, where it did again offer to meet with Mr B.
17. Mr B remained unhappy, and the Council issued its ‘stage 2’ response in May 2021.
18. The Council accepted it did not properly record a contact from Ms B in 2015 and did not pursue a complaint from Mr B in 2018, but did not find any fault in how it had investigated concerns raised about Mr & Mrs B. The Council apologised for the errors it identified.

Was there fault causing injustice?

19. Mr B queries why the Council acts on unfounded complaints from his neighbours without question. The answer to this is the Council has a duty to investigate the concerns it receives. The Council cannot know if a complaint is unfounded without investigating it. If the Council establishes there is no nuisance it will close its case. The Council cannot simply ignore complaints it receives so I cannot criticise it for investigating concerns it receives about Mr & Mrs B. On most occasions the Council’s investigations have resulted in it taking no action, which shows it has not wrongly or maliciously pursued an action against Mr & Mrs B following its investigation.
20. I understand it is upsetting for Mr & Mrs B to feel they are constantly under investigation, and like their neighbours have some sort of vendetta against them. That upset is caused by the actions of those making repeated complaints, not the Council’s actions investigating, which it must do regardless of the number of reports someone is making. The Council cannot know if a complaint it receives is unfounded without some investigation.
21. I recognise the Council failed to investigate when Mr & Mrs B raised concerns of anti-social behaviour by their neighbours in 2015 and 2018. This leaves Mr & Mrs B with a feeling the Council is biased, because it treated them unfavourably. The Council has accepted this error and apologised, this is appropriate action in response.
22. The Council took seven months to respond to the complaint Mr B submitted in August 2020. This does not comply with its complaint procedure. However, it is evident the Council was in communication with Mr B over this period and he had asked to put on hold any meeting, and therefore the complaint investigation, until he had received requested data and then answers to his questions because of the data he received. Therefore, the reason for this delay was the Council trying to accommodate Mr B’s requests.
23. Mr B did initially refuse a meeting, for which he had his reasons. I have not seen evidence this was revisited at the time the Council was ready to issue its complaint response. The Council did again offer meeting in its ‘stage 1’ complaint response. If Mr B would still like to meet with the Council, he should contact it accordingly.
24. Mr B says he would like the Council’s help in getting a court order against those who constantly complain about him. The Council confirmed it could help with this if it had evidence to inform it, which at present it does not feel it does.
25. Harassment is both a criminal offence and a civil action under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Mr B could seek support from the police and could seek legal advice about a private action against those who are harassing him and his wife.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation on the basis I am satisfied with the Council’s actions to investigate Mr B’s concerns and that it has apologised for not taking forward concerns Mr B and his wife raised with it in 2015 and 2018. I do not consider I could achieve anything more by further investigation, and am satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. I did not investigate Mr B’s concerns about how the Council dealt with a Subject Access Request. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to deal with these concerns.
28. I did not investigate concerns about the Council’s actions prior to the August 2020 complaint, because they are late complaints and there is not a good reason why Mr & Mrs B could not have raised those with the Ombudsman sooner. Earlier issues are mentioned for context and background, and because the impact on Mr & Mrs B is ongoing and has led to their complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman