Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council encouraging the complainant’s neighbours to harass her. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Also an investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is another suitable organisation to consider the concerns about breaches of privacy and harassment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is encouraging her neighbours to harass her.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complains the Council is encouraging her neighbours to harass her because:
• Her neighbours have a personal connection to someone at the Council.
• It provided her neighbours with a video doorbell which they use to film her property and everyone who comes and goes from her home.
• It refuses to have an independent company install noise monitoring equipment in her home.
6. In response to my enquiries the Council confirms:
• None of the officers in its public protection team (the team involved with Ms X’s concerns) have a personal connection to her neighbours. It also confirms that as far as it is aware no one in the wider Council has a personal connection to her neighbours.
• It has offered to install noise monitoring equipment in Ms X’s home and the Officer concerned has no personal connection to her neighbours.
• The video doorbell was provided to Ms X’s neighbours following their provision of photographic and video evidence that Ms X’s behaviour was making them feel unsafe. The doorbell is to protect both the neighbours and Ms X from false allegations.
• The video doorbell was installed with necessary privacy requirements.
7. In view of the above I have decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because:
• The Council confirms its officers in its public protection team have no personal connection with Ms X’s neighbours. We cannot involve ourselves in personnel matters, therefore an investigation on this point would not lead to a different outcome.
• The Council has offered to install noise monitoring equipment more than once, by an officer with no personal connection to the neighbours. It is for Ms X to choose whether to accept this. The Council is not required to engage an independent company to carry out this function.
• If Ms X believes her neighbours are breaching her privacy by using the video doorbell to record her and her visitors to her property she can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. She can also report them to the police if she believes they are breaking the law by harassing or threatening her.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman