Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaints about anti-social behaviour. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she requests and because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. In short, Mrs X complains the Council’s handling of her anti-social behaviour complaints was affected by delay, poor communication and limited empathy.
2. She says she has been caused severe stress plus emotional harm to her family forcing them to move house. Mrs X wants to be compensated financially and for the case to be reviewed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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;
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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 reports that while the case was decided in court her evidence was not all presented. She says the anti-social behaviour officer did not attend the court hearing, a senior officer was dismissive to her, and the Council misled her in to thinking an eviction order would be achieved instead of the suspended possession order granted by the court. She complains she and her family have been caused emotional harm including to her children for which she seeks financial redress.
7. The Council says it took enforcement action on her reports culminating in a court order awarded against the perpetrator. While it acknowledges the ‘emotional toll’ to Mrs X and her family, it says it acted in line with its policies and procedures.
8. The Council has explained it is usual for an anti-social behaviour officer not to attend when a housing officer was present, and all their evidence was considered via written submissions to the court. It goes on to explain the significance of the court order but says it cannot provide any further information due to its duty of confidentiality to third parties.
9. The Council provided an apology as Mrs X found the ‘professionally written’ correspondence to her ‘dismissive’ and said that was not the officer’s intention. Overall, the Council apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
10. The Council took formal enforcement action resulting in a court order. We are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault that seriously affected the outcome, albeit Mrs X‘s complains of delays and poor communication.
11. Further, we cannot determine liability for personal injury including emotional harm as these are matters for the court. Our role is to consider complaints about administrative fault. Similarly, we would not be able to link costs associated with a house move to the Council’s action. And there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to review the case. We cannot achieve the outcomes requested. So, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we cannot achieve the specified outcomes and there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman