Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to reports of anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council actions. Also, we will not investigate the complaint about a refusal to provide information as it is reasonable to expect the complainant to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office on this point.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council failed to deal with her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her former neighbours. She also complains the Council refuses to give her the contact details of her former neighbour’s landlord.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. X made multiple complaints alleging ASB from her neighbours. Information provided by the Council shows officers visited numerous times in response to her reports.
7. Following numerous inspections, the Council confirmed:
• the neighbour’s flue was correctly installed with a valid gas certificate and no identified problems
• no noise was heard when visiting the property and X refused to have noise monitoring equipment installed in her home
• no evidence was found of pest/fly/maggot infestation
• no evidence of light nuisance; and
• complaints of assault, harassment and stalking are matters for the police.
8. From the information I have seen it appears the Council has responded to the concerns raised by X.
9. X confirms the neighbours moved out some months ago and the property is empty. However, she wants the Council to give her the contact details for the landlord as she says there are issues with the flue, the fence and there is rubbish in the garden.
10. The Council has refused to give X the information she wants, saying this would be breach of data protection regulations. However, it has told her how she can obtain the information by contacting the Land Registry.
11. If the Council is refusing to give X information which she believes she is entitled to receive, we consider it is reasonable to expect her to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Officer (ICO).
12. The Information Commissioner’s Office is the organisation best placed to consider complaints about how organisations handle people’s data and respond to requests for information.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s responses to her reports of ASB to justify an investigation.
14. Also, it is reasonable to expect her to contact the ICO about the Council’s refusal to give her the information she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman