Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his anti-social behaviour reports. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council decided it would not take enforcement action following his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) related to his neighbour’s cat. He says this has allowed further incidents to take place, causing him distress and costs including installing security equipment. He wants the Council to take action to stop the ASB, and provide financial redress for his time and trouble.

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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. ASB is broadly defined in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. It includes conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to their occupation of residential premises.
6. Where someone reports ASB to a council, it should first decide whether the behaviour would amount to ASB, if proved.
7. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained why it decided not to take formal action following Mr X’s reports. It said it had reviewed the evidence Mr X submitted, assessed the law on ASB and its relevant powers, and consulted its legal department for advice. It said it decided that the evidence did not meet the threshold for formal enforcement action.
8. The Council also considered the other two legal bases which Mr X raised in his complaint. It said there were no public health or environmental concerns in this case so its investigatory powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 did not apply. It considered case law and Mr X’s reports and decided it had no legal basis to pursue enforcement under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
9. The Council said its decision did not prevent Mr X from taking his own legal action on the matter.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Our role is to consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. The Council has explained how it considered Mr X’s reports and the reasons it decided not to take formal action. As it has appropriately considered the matter, we cannot question the decision reached. The Council also appropriately signposted Mr X to the option of private legal action. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of this matter to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman