Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council considered nuisance caused by the complainant’s neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not take enforcement action against his neighbour for breaching a Community Protection Warning (CPW). He said the CPW required his neighbour to stop feeding birds and other wildlife in their garden. Mr X said he had provided the Council evidence his neighbour was still feeding the wildlife, but it had failed to take enforcement action.
2. Mr X said he cannot use his garden, as it is covered in bird droppings, food and vermin. He wants the Council to enforce the CPW.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2024 about his neighbour feeding the birds. He said that was resulting in vermin and bird droppings in his back garden.
9. In the Council’s stage one complaint response, it said it had dealt with reports of nuisance dating back to 2020. It said following Mr X’s most recent report, it wrote to his neighbour and visited both their properties. It said it found no evidence of a statutory nuisance or rodent activity. The Council said it gave advice to both parties about the control of vermin.
10. In the Council’s stage two response, it acknowledged Mr X had submitted additional evidence which had resulted in it deciding to issue his neighbour with a Community Protection Warning (CPW), asking them to stop feeding the wildlife. However, it maintained there was not enough evidence of a statutory nuisance and said it found his neighbours garden clean and tidy. It said as Mr X was reporting pests in his property, it would visit his neighbour to check for evidence of any nests.
11. Following that response, Mr X sent the Council further photographs on different occasions. He states these photographs demonstrate his neighbour is breaching the CPW.
12. In subsequent emails from the Council to Mr X, it confirmed it had considered the photographs but said these did not demonstrate a significant enough breach of the CPW. The Council also completed a further visit to the neighbour; it said there was no evidence they were continuing to feed wildlife. It confirmed that it continued to remind his neighbour about the importance of complying with the CPW.
13. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. Any complaint about how the Council considered the nuisance before March 2024 are late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider these matters now. The Council has investigated his most concerns and completed site visits. It has confirmed there is no evidence of a statutory nuisance. It has also directed Mr X to the courts if he wishes to take his own action. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached that decision to justify our involvement.
14. The Council has accepted there is an amount of anti-social behaviour caused by the neighbour’s feeding of the birds and issued a CPW. It has considered the additional evidence provided by Mr X about the breach of that CPW, but decided the threshold for enforcement is not met based on the photographs provided by Mr X and its own visits. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it has considered the matter to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman