Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over complaints about anti-social behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over her claims of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour since 2022. She says the Council should have worked with the Police to issue a Community Protection Notice against her neighbour since March 2024. As a result, she says that her family has been subjected to fireworks, criminal damage to fencing and CCTV intrusion.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says she has been suffering from anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours for years. The Council held an ASB case review in December 2024 after Mrs X made a request by utilising the Community Trigger.
6. The Panel of the case review included representatives from the Council,. The NHS and Merseyside Police. The panel considered evidence provided from Mrs X and different sources and analysed the action which might have been appropriate. It concluded that some aspects were not within the remit of the authorities because they were civil matters and had involved civil court action on some issues, or they were for another body such as the Information Commissioner regarding CCTV data collection.
7. The Council could have taken action as a result of the meeting which included the issuing of a Community Protection Warning/Notice to either of the parties, both of them, or neither. In this case the police advised that there was insufficient evidence of any criminal activity and the panel concluded that mediation between the parties was the practical remedy for the claims made. The boundary dispute was a civil matter which was subject to ongoing proceedings at the time.
8. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Panel’s decision and asked the Police and Crime Commissioner to review the decision. The decision was reviews but the Commissioner concluded it had been undertaken appropriately.
9. 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. I have read the panel report and it covered the issues comprehensively. it is not our role to question the validity of the evidence or the Panel’s judgement of this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over complaints about anti-social behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman