Summary: Mr C complains the Council did not do enough to address anti-social behaviour by his neighbours which he says caused him stress and inconvenience. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council has not done enough to address anti-social behaviour by his neighbours. Mr C states this has caused him stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated that part of Mr C’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his reports of anti-social behaviour since January 2021. I have not investigated earlier events as Mr C could have complained to the Ombudsman about them sooner. This is a late complaint and there is not enough reason to accept those earlier parts of it for investigation now (please see paragraph 5 below).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I read the papers provided by Mr C and considered some information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Reports about drainage/guttering

8. The Council was copied in to a report to the water company about a blocked drain in the summer of 2022. The Council asked if the water company had responded and cleared the blockage. The Council also visited Mr C’s property in August but there was no reply. The Council visited Mr C’s property again in September and found a shared gulley for the properties that required cleaning and gave advice. Mr C said a nearby manhole was also blocked as his neighbour put things down the drain. The Council lifted the cover and found the drain was running freely. The Council also noted a connection between Mr C’s guttering and new guttering his neighbour had installed did not appear to be properly connected.
9. The Council confirmed towards the end of September it was considering serving a legal notice on Mr C’s neighbour under the Building Act 1984. The Council referred the matter to its legal team for advice. As a result of this advice the Council wrote to Mr C at the end of September to confirm it could not take action against his neighbour and explained why.
10. I have seen no fault by the Council in the way it responded to this issue. The Council visited Mr C’s property in response to his drainage report and took appropriate action. The Council has provided cogent reasons why it cannot take formal action about the guttering.

Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

11. Mr C left a telephone message about ASB with the Council towards the end of January 2021. Mr C subsequently advised the report related to being verbally abused by his neighbour.
12. The Council telephoned Mr C in early February when he confirmed things had been relatively quiet apart from the reported incident when his neighbour approached him using abusive language. Mr C explained he had not heard most of what was said but suggested he was being told to stop making complaints. The Council confirmed it would contact Mr C’s neighbour about using abusive language. The Council visited Mr C’s neighbour in February and provided an update to Mr C in early March.
13. Mr C contacted the Council in July to ask about the process for reporting ASB. Mr C referred to a previous incident when he had been installing a temporary fence but did not provide further details. Mr C also stated his neighbour had recently been looking in his windows and referred to other incidents which he had reported to police as harassment. Mr C subsequently confirmed he had sought legal advice about his temporary fence being pushed over which appeared to relate to an ongoing boundary dispute. Mr C referred to his neighbours on both sides.
14. The Council telephoned Mr C in July to discuss his report. The Council explained one set of his neighbours were Council tenants and provided details of how to report any further issues relating to that neighbour. The Council also explained the difficulty in investigating reports of staring or loitering relating to his other neighbour and highlighted that the neighbour had denied such behaviour when visited. The Council would need evidence of ASB to take any action. Mr C made further similar reports to the Council.
15. Mr C made a complaint to the Council via his MP towards the end of July. The Council provided a detailed response in early September. The Council also suggested to Mr C that it would arrange a multi- agency meeting with him to review the issues he had raised and consider whether further action was required. The Council asked when this would be convenient for Mr C.
16. Mr C offered to send some video evidence and asked a series of questions about the proposed meeting in September. The Council responded to Mr C’s questions and confirmed Mr C could provide the video evidence ahead of this. The Council sent several reminders seeking Mr C’s availability for the meeting. Mr C asked the Council to complete a review of his recordings first. Mr C subsequently made reports about dog fouling and damage to his car.
17. The Council completed a case review in early October of all the evidence provided by Mr C which included his emails, photographs and video footage. This concluded there was no evidence of ASB or harassment towards Mr C. The Council closed the case and confirmed this with its reasons to Mr C in mid-October. The Council also confirmed it had arranged additional patrols in response to his reports of dog fouling and the damage to his car would be a matter for the police.
18. Mr C contacted the Council again about various issues with his neighbour in early May 2022. The Council responded to say it had investigated the ASB issues during 2021 and provided an outcome at the time. However, as Mr C suggested the ASB had changed it would arrange to visit to discuss the current situation. The Council also provided details of how to report noise issues and confirmed disputed boundaries were a private matter and planning issues needed to be sent to its planning department and reports about dangerous driving should be made to the police. The Council made several attempts to speak to Mr C and arrange a visit during May and June. The Council closed the case towards the end of June as it had not been able to make contact with Mr C.
19. Mr C contacted the Council towards the end of July to ask for it to contact his neighbour. The Council contacted Mr C in July and August to try and arrange a visit at his property or its offices. Mr C provided further details about his neighbour’s behaviour and asked to meet in a local shopping centre.
20. The Council responded in mid-September to explain it could only take formal action against his neighbour with enough evidence and this had not been provided. The Council reminded Mr C it had sought a meeting with him several times to discuss his concerns but his suggestion of meeting in a shopping centre was not appropriate and repeated its offer to use Council offices or the police station if he did not want to meet at home.
21. Mr C sent further emails to the Council and provided further video footage in September and stated he had mostly been out of the country since July.
22. The Council wrote to Mr C in early December to explain that after reviewing the recent evidence including his videos and liaison with the police there was no evidence of ASB for which it could take action. The Council offered Mr C a meeting to discuss this outcome but confirmed without such evidence it was not able to progress the matter further.
23. The Council met with Mr C and the police towards the end of December. Following this meeting the Council agreed to speak to his neighbour again about some of the alleged behaviour.
24. It is clear Mr C remains upset by his neighbour’s actions but the Ombudsman can only investigate the actions of the Council once matters have been reported.
25. Based on the information provided, I consider the Council has properly responded to Mr C’s reports about his neighbour. The Council has visited Mr C and his neighbour, liaised with the police and reviewed all the information provided by Mr C in reaching its view there was not actionable ASB. The Council explained this decision to Mr C which is one it was entitled to reach. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to date and I note the matter remains ongoing.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman