Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a failure to act on reports of anti-social behaviour, a failure to respond to a subject access request and a failure to follow the complaint procedure. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the reports of antisocial behaviour. Mr X has already reported his concerns about the subject access request to the Information Commissioner’s Office. And the Council has apologised for the failure to follow the complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to:
• act on his reports of sustained anti-social harassment
• carry out safeguarding duties; and
• to comply with his subject access request and complaint procedures.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X made several reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by groups of youths playing football on a field near his home and kicking a ball against neighbours’ fences.
6. The Council advised Mr X that officers patrolled the area at different times of day on at least 13 occasions. The reported sometimes seeing no youths and sometimes seeing youths playing football. However, they did not witness any ASB or youths near private property. An officer reminded a young person that their ball should not hit fences and this was understood. The Council also advised Mr X that allegations of criminal damage should be made to the police.
7. Mr X also told the Council that his neighbours had harassed him in the street by warning him to stop scaring their child. Mr X confirmed he had reported this to the police who advised there was no crime.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council has confirmed:
• Photographs provided by Mr X do not demonstrate ASB.
• It had not received any other formal statements or complaints from other neighbours to support Mr X reports.
• Evidence submitted did not fall within the categories stated in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014.
• Officers have patrolled the area and not witnessed ASB.
• The police have confirmed no crime has been committed; and
• It has seen no evidence of statutory nuisance.

It advised Mr X’s reports of ASB do not meet the criteria for action under the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014. It also told him of his right to take action in the magistrates’ court if he considers the youths are causing a statutory nuisance. Having investigated Mr X’s concerns, this is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

9. The Council has apologised to Mr X for its failure to follow its complaint procedure leading to a delay in advising Mr X of his right to escalate his complaint. I consider this is a satisfactory remedy for this error.
10. Mr X says Council failed to respond to his subject access request. We will not investigate this point as Mr X has already reported this to the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the body set up by parliament to uphold information rights.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided not to act on his reports of ASB.
• We consider it reasonable for Mr X to report his complaint about the Councils failure to respond to his subject access request to the ICO. Mr X has already done so.
• We consider the Council’s apology for its failure to follow its complaint procedure to be a suitable remedy to this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman