Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not investigate his complaints about nuisance and antisocial behaviour properly. We discontinued our investigation. That is because there is not enough evidence of significant fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not investigate his complaints about nuisance and antisocial behaviour properly.
2. Specifically, Mr X said the Council:
• Took no action over a neighbour installing a structure which attracted rats.
• Did not take proper action over light nuisance or harassment.
• Failed to meet deadlines and refused his appeal.
3. Mr X said he and his wife suffered physical and emotional harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I considered the Council’s responses along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr X 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

8. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
9. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaints about light nuisance and rats. Officers gave Mr X pest control advice. The Council also served an abatement notice on Mr X’s neighbour over their light, which they had to reposition. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not place time restrictions on his neighbour’s use of the light, as it did when investigating complaints about decorative lights in Mr X’s garden. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaints. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the decision, but Mr X’s lights are different to his neighbours, and each case must be assessed on its own merits. I have not seen obvious evidence of fault.
10. Stockport Homes investigate antisocial behaviour on the Council’s behalf. They investigated Mr X’s complaints about harassment. They spoke to the alleged perpetrator, to Mr X’s neighbours, and the police. Initially, they dismissed Mr X’s complaints. That view was based on the evidence available at the time, and I did not see any obvious fault.
11. Later, during a police interview, Mr X’s neighbour admitted to causing criminal damage. The police issued Mr X’s neighbour a Community Protection Notice Warning.
12. In its stage one complaint response, Stockport Homes said it wanted to await the outcome of the police investigation, then consider any further action it could take. It also asked Mr X for further evidence in support of his allegations.
13. Mr X said he made a stage two complaint, providing the police outcome, but Stockport Homes did not respond.
14. I am satisfied the police have dealt with the substantive issue. If Mr X considers there is more action Stockport Homes should take, he can again ask for a stage two complaint response. Because Stockport Homes are providing a service on the Council’s behalf, the Council remains ultimately responsible. Mr X can therefore ask the Council to intervene or update him. He can also ask the Council for an antisocial behaviour case review.
15. Mr X also said the Council refused his appeal. In the Council’s final complaint response, it offered to re-open its light nuisance investigation.
16. I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council which justifies further investigation. As we have not investigated the substantive matter, we would not investigate any delays in the complaint process.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I discontinued my investigation. That is because there is not enough evidence of significant fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman