Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by Mr X’s neighbours. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the length of time the Council took to issue his neighbours with a Community Protection Warning (CPW), that he had to provide evidence constantly and about the communication he received from the Council about his community trigger (ASB case review) request. He says he should receive an apology and compensation.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council about the ASB of his neighbours and in August 2023 he requested a community trigger, now called an ASB case review. He met with the case officer to discuss matters just over a week later and was told that while he did not meet the trigger threshold, she would consider serving a CPW and get the police to contact him directly. The officer did service the CPW and the police decided they would not pursue criminal proceedings. Following the service of the CPW about two months after Mr X’s trigger request, the neighbours moved out of the property shortly after.
6. In addressing Mr X’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that it should have sent a written response to his request for a trigger rather than relying on verbal communication and it has reviewed its procedures to ensure this happens in future. It explained why it takes time to consider all the evidence surrounding the decision to issue a CPW and it apologised for its delay in dealing with his complaint.
7. We are funded by the public purse and have an obligation to use the public funds allocated to us in an effective, efficient and economic manner. This is means we do not investigate every complaint we receive and we will not investigate when the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman