Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a Council officer involved in an anti-social behaviour case involving the complainants. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain they were victimised, harassed and bullied by a Council officer involved in an anti-social behaviour case involving them. They say the officer shared personal data with neighbours and that the officer had turned up unannounced at their property.

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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council officer the subject of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint visited their property to issue Mrs X with a Community Protection Warning letter about her behaviour.
6. In responding to their complaint about the conduct of this officer, the Council confirmed the visit had been unannounced, in accordance with usual practice, and that no personal data had been shared with other neighbours apart from telling the neighbours who had complained about Mrs X’s behaviour that she had been issued with a warning.
7. The Council said it had no evidence to support the allegations the complainants had made about the officer’s conduct but confirmed it would consider any further evidence they wanted to provide.
8. As an outcome to their complaint, the complainants said they wanted the officer to have no further involvement with their case. This has in fact been the case since May 2024 when the officer requested they no longer be assigned to Mr and Mrs X’s case.
9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and we will not investigate when there are insufficient grounds to do so. In this case the Council investigated the complainants’ allegations about the behaviour of the officer but found no evidence to support them. Despite the delay by the Council in responding to the original complaint, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected its decision. Moreover, the outcome the complainants sought in having the officer removed from their case has already been achieved.
10. Since making their original complaint to us, the complainants have also raised issues concerning the behaviour of tenants living next door to them. This is a separate matter to that considered here and it is open to Mr and Mrs X to make a formal complaint to the Council about it. We will not consider it further until the Council has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman