Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of antisocial behaviour. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of noise nuisance allegations made against her household. Ms X also complain about the Council’s responses to her subject access requests.
2. Ms X says she has been caused great distress by the Council issuing her with a community protection warning.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating,
• 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

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. The Council received reports of antisocial behaviour at Ms X’s property from nearby properties. Council officers visited and said it witnessed excessive noise on two occasions during two home visits to Miss X’s property. The Council subsequently issued Ms X with a community protection warning and made a safeguarding referral to the Council concerning Miss X.
7. Miss X raises various concerns saying the Council’s decisions are flawed due to bias against her, failed to take in to account her long-term health conditions, held her responsible for the actions of her family and so on.
8. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers when there is not enough evidence of fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the outcome of decisions.
9. The Council’s complaint responses to Ms X evidence its officers personally witnessing excessive noise on two occasions resulting in sending a warning letter to Miss X. It has rejected her claims of bias plus made a safeguarding referral about her. And it reminded her she can complain about her neighbours and the Council will investigate in the usual way.
10. Taking all the above into account, there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council decision to send Ms X a warning letter after witnessing two instances of excessive noise. Therefore, we will not investigate.
11. Finally, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the adequacy of the Council’s response to her requests for information as this is best addressed by the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is the national regulator for enforcing information rights legislation and is the most suitable body to consider.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman