Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of nuisance and anti-social behaviour by his neighbour. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to his reports of nuisance and anti-social behaviour by his neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council investigated the reports of nuisance and anti-social behaviour Mr X made against his neighbours. However, having done so, it decided the matters complained about did not meet the threshold for enforcement action.
7. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions made by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may be disappointed with the decision taken by the Council, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
8. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged it had sent some incorrect information to Mr X’s MP and that it had delayed in responding to a byelaw enquiry Mr X had made. While this is noted, these issues do not provide sufficient grounds to warrant a formal investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman