Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) involving his neighbour. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, or they concern matters we either cannot investigate or will not investigate because there is another body better placed to do so

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled ongoing disputes with his neighbour. He is unhappy with the Council’s investigation into ASB allegations made about him. He says the Council delayed its response and issued him an advisory letter without first asking for his account. He believes the letter was inaccurate and threatening.
2. Mr X also says the Council failed to act on his reports about his neighbour’s behaviour, including allegations of assault and defamatory comments, and treated him less favourably. He also complains about the Council’s handling of a light intrusion issue and its refusal to remove the advisory letter from its records.
3. Mr X says these events have caused him distress and made him feel vulnerable to further accusations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says his neighbour directed a light at his property, which caused light intrusion and led him to raise concerns. The Council treated this as a potential statutory nuisance and referred the matter to its environmental health team. The team investigated and decided it did not meet the legal threshold. It advised him that it was, therefore, a civil matter which Mr X could pursue through the courts. The Council took the actions we would expect. Therefore there is not enough evidence of fault to investigate.
9. Mr X also complained about an alleged assault and defamatory remarks made by his neighbour. Allegations of assault or criminal harassment are for the police, not for the Council. The Council signposted Mr X to the appropriate authority who is better placed to look at the matter. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault in this decision.
10. Mr X raised concerns about tree and hedge cutting by his neighbour. The Council found no evidence the behaviour amounted to anti-social behaviour. Therefore, it informed Mr X this was a boundary issue and advised him to seek legal advice. There is not enough evidence of fault to investigate.
11. In relation to the Council’s decision to issue Mr X with an advisory letter, Mr X believes the Council treated him less favourably than his neighbour when it spoke to them but not him before issuing the letter. The Council explained it did not need to consult him beforehand. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions.
12. Mr X also complains about delays in the Council’s response to ASB reports. The Council took two months to assess the matter. We would normally consider 12 weeks as a reasonable amount of time for the Council to investigate a matter. The Council was below that threshold so it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault.
13. Mr X asked the Council to remove the advisory letter from its records, but the Council declined. Decisions about retaining or erasing data fall under data protection law. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regulates this area, and Mr X can raise the issue with the ICO, who is better placed to consider it.

Back to top

Final decision

14. "We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints because there is insufficient evidence of fault, or they concern matters we either cannot investigate or will not investigate because there is another body better placed to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman