Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not properly handled her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. She says the Council’s response has added to the stress caused by her neighbour’s actions. Mrs X wants the Council to take action to stop the anti-social behaviour.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils have a general duty to tackle ASB. ASB is broadly defined in section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The law says ASB can include types of behaviour causing harassment, alarm, distress, nuisance or annoyance. These terms are not defined in law and are open to interpretation.
6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it is wrong. Instead, our role is to consider complaints of administrative fault. This means we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council about her neighbour, who she said had been harassing her over several months. Mrs X said the harassment began after she attempted to put up a fence leading to a boundary dispute with her neighbour. Mrs X says the harassment has affected her and her partner’s mental health.
8. In its complaint responses, the Council explained how it investigated Mrs X’s complaint. This included visiting Mrs X, reviewing her evidence, and considering the issues she raised, such as trespass and obstructing tradespeople. It also consulted its planning department on the matter.
9. The Council said it decided the behaviour Mrs X complained about did not meet the threshold for it to start formal action. It would therefore not take action using its ASB powers but suggested alternative options to Mrs X. This included signposting to independent legal advice on civil property matters and to the Police for violent or other criminal incidents. The Council also explained the option of an ASB case review, and offered mediation which Mrs X declined.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Although we acknowledge the situation may have caused distress, the Council has clearly explained its actions and decision-making for Mrs X’s ASB complaint. It has investigated her complaint, explained its decision not to use its ASB powers, and suggested alternative options to resolve Mrs X’s concerns. As it has appropriately considered the matter, we cannot question the decision reached. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman