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

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of ASB and nuisance by his neighbour over two years. He says his communications were not answered and that he had been led to believe action would be taken against the neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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:

• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to earlier events in Mr X’s complaint which date back from November 2021. As we would reasonably have expected Mr X to have complained to us sooner, these past events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time.
8. In addressing Mr X’s recent complaint about ongoing problems with his neighbour, the Council acknowledged and apologised for its delays in responding to Mr X and an absence of full case notes, findings and communications with him. It confirmed recommendations had been made to remind officers of the importance of managing customer expectations, keeping accurate and consistent case notes and keeping good communication with customers.
9. In October 2022 a response to a Member Enquiry, which was forwarded to Mr X, the Council explained that a site visit had been carried out but that the matters about which Mr X had complained had not been substantiated and that they were essentially a civil law matters about which he should seek legal advice.
10. There was a further delay and lack of communication by the Council but its more recent investigation which included another site visit and consideration of diary sheets submitted by Mr X, did not change its view that the issues about which Mr X had complained were civil matters and there were no grounds on which to base enforcement action by the Council.
11. While this is a disappointing decision for Mr X, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal and review the merits of decisions made by councils. The Council has acknowledged there was fault in its handling of Mr X’s case, particularly with regard to communicating with him and the recording of case notes. However, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. 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 significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman