Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way his case officer has handled his complaints about anti-social behaviour taking place at his next-door neighbour’s home. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in finding fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained his case officer has been too lenient in how he has handled Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour taking place at his next-door neighbour’s home.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B)).
3. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained his assigned Council case officer failed to respond appropriately to reports he has made regarding anti-social behaviour taking place at his next door neighbour’s home. He complained his neighbour has been allowed to get away with behaviour that has caused him distress. He also complained the Council delayed responding to his complaint.
7. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. The Council explained it would not usually change case officers unless there was a breakdown in communication. The Council cited the number of times it has installed noise monitoring equipment and confirmed it has previously served the neighbour in question with an abatement notice and made them subject to an action plan when it identified anti-social behaviour was taking place. The Council said the most recent installation showed a reduction in noise and it did not determine further action was necessary. The Council told Mr X that its timescales for complaint responses had increased, and it had responded in line with the new timescales.
8. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council and wants us to find it at fault. The evidence shows the Council has responded to Mr X’s recent reports of anti-social behaviour by installing noise monitoring equipment and considering whether the recordings represent anti-social behaviour. It has then explained its findings to Mr X. This is in line with what we would expect. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council has responded to this matter. An investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.
9. Mr X has complained about the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman will not investigate a Council’s complaint handling where it is not investigating the substantive matters as this would not be a good use of public resources.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman