Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation and it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has not properly dealt with her neighbour’s anti-social behaviour (ASB). She says it is affecting her health and well-being. She wants the Council to take enforcement action against her neighbour.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

3. 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X made a number of allegations of ASB about her neighbour. Mrs X complained to the Council about the officer who dealt with her case. The Council told Mrs X the officer handled the complaint in line with its standards and policies. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council handled this part of the complaint.
7. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaints about her neighbour to decide if it met the threshold of a statutory nuisance.
8. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits.
9. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
10. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s home and the evidence was independently assessed by a Consumer Protection Officer. The Council decided it did not amount to a statutory nuisance.
11. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’. The Council carried out an anti-social behaviour case review.
12. An outcome of the review was to conduct further noise monitoring. However, Mrs X refused to have further noise monitoring equipment installed. The Council explained to Mrs X why that made it difficult to take enforcement action. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council handled this part of the complaint.
13. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
14. Mrs X also complained about harassment and criminal damage by her neighbour. Those are matters for the police. Complaints about operational matters, such as how a crime was or was not investigated and about crime prevention are excluded from jurisdiction, as are complaints against individual police officers. Such complaints should be referred to the relevant policing body or to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.  
15. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action. The Council told Mrs X that option was available to her. It also offered mediation and sound-proofing equipment. The Council said if Mrs X is still experiencing ASB, she can make a new complaint to the Council. The Ombudsman is unable to add anything further to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation and it is unlikely an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman