Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council responded to her reports of anti-social behaviour because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays and poor communication because the Council already apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code were not met.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to act on her reports of anti-social behaviour; and
2. mishandled her complaint.
2. Ms X said the matter caused her distress and frustration.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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

Delay in responding to Ms X’s complaints of anti-social behaviour and poor communication

6. In its complaint response letters, the Council accepted that, at times, it delayed responding to Ms X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. It also accepted it did not inform her when an officer was on annual leave.
7. The Council apologised and explained it would remind its officers to act on reports of anti-social behaviour in a timely manner and to provide updates to residents where officers go on leave. The delay in acting on Ms X’s reports of anti-social behaviour was only a matter of weeks.
8. Because the Council apologised and explained service improvements it would undertake, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further, and so we will not investigate this matter.

The Council’s actions in response to the reports of anti-social behaviour

9. In its complaint response letters the Council explained actions it had taken relating to Ms X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. This included, but was not limited to:
• writing to neighbours about children playing football;
• conducting site visits;
• removing fly-tipped items from the area;
• organising residents meetings;
• coordinating with the police;
• and other actions.
10. 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.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered and acted upon Ms X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. It considered evidence provided by Ms X and other residents and acted when it identified the statutory threshold for anti-social behaviour was reached. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

The Council’s complaints handling

12. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, we will not investigate how the Council considered Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman