Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to reports of Anti-Social Behaviour and fly-tipping. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to address concerns he had raised about his neighbour’s anti-social behaviour (ASB). He says the Council failed to take his CCTV privacy concerns seriously and has dismissed clear evidence showing that the neighbour’s cameras overlook his property. He also says the neighbour dumped rubbish into his garden, and the Council has taken no action. Mr X believes this behaviour amounts to harassment and has left him feeling unsafe, ignored, and affected his mental health. He wants the Council to take action against the tenant, ensure the cameras are removed or redirected, and properly enforce privacy and tenancy rules.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X (a homeowner) reported that his neighbour (a Council tenant) threw garden waste into his garden and positioned several CCTV cameras toward his property. He said this formed part of ongoing harassment.
9. He says the Council advised him to report the garden waste as fly‑tipping and dismissed his privacy concerns directing him to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
10. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and visited his neighbour. It reported finding no remaining waste, so it could not take enforcement action. The Council also noted that both parties had cameras facing each other’s properties. After inspecting the neighbour’s equipment, it decided no further action was necessary. It explained that earlier ASB issues had been managed, but the recent reports did not meet its threshold for further action.
11. The evidence shows the Council considered Mr X’s concerns, determined the situation did not amount to anti‑social behaviour, and correctly directed him to the ICO for any privacy issues relating to domestic CCTV. The Council also investigated the fly‑tipping report but found no evidence.
12. The Council took account of all the relevant information, and its decision was based on the professional judgement of its officers. This was a decision the Council is entitled to make, and I have found no fault in how it was made.
13. We will not investigate this complaint as further investigation would be unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council, nor can we achieve the outcome Mr X wants. We have no powers to compel the Council to take the action Mr X wants in respect of his neighbour’s tenancy or removal of their cameras. If Mr X believes his neighbour’s CCTV still breaches his privacy, it is reasonable for him to pursue this with the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman