Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to investigate his report of anti-social behaviour concerning CCTV installed by his neighbour. We found no fault in the Council’s decision not to investigate, which was in line with its policy. However, we have found fault with delay in the Council’s response, failing to provide clear and consistent reasons for its decision, and failing to include Ombudsman signposting in its complaint response. The Council's delayed response caused Mr X uncertainty, for which it has already provided a suitable remedy by apologising, while the other faults did not cause a significant personal injustice, so I make no further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his report of anti-social behaviour (ASB) concerning CCTV installed by his neighbour.
2. Mr X says the Council wrongly told him it could not investigate his report because he is not a council tenant. He says this caused him distress and confusion, and he wants the Council to investigate the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant information

ASB

7. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.

Council’s ASB policy

8. The Council’s ASB policy says it will respond to initial reports of non-urgent, low-risk ASB within five working days.
9. The policy also states that the Council does not investigate complaints about CCTV.

Council’s complaints policy

10. The Council's complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within five working days and provide a response within 20 working days.

What happened

11. In October 2025, Mr X reported ASB by his neighbour, who is a housing association tenant. He said the neighbour had installed CCTV facing a communal car park and shared pathways. Mr X explained he had already reported the matter to the housing association but also wanted the Council to review it.
12. Around two weeks later, having received no response, Mr X complained that the Council had failed to acknowledge or respond to his ASB report.
13. About a week later, the Council's ASB team responded. It apologised for the delay and explained it could not investigate issues relating to housing association properties. It advised Mr X that the matter should be pursued with the housing association and suggested he contact the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) regarding his concerns about the CCTV.
14. Mr X replied the same day. While he acknowledged the Council's position on the ASB report, he said its response had not addressed the complaint he had made about its lack of response.
15. The Council replied that it could not investigate because Mr X was not a council tenant. It again advised him to pursue the matter with the housing association and referred him to the ICO.
16. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
17. In late November, the Council issued its complaint response. It accepted it had responded to Mr X's ASB report six working days later than required by its policy and apologised. It maintained that responsibility for investigating the matter rested with the housing association and that concerns about CCTV should be raised with the ICO.

My Findings

ASB report

18. The Council's ASB policy says it does not investigate complaints about CCTV. It was therefore entitled not to investigate Mr X's report.
19. However, the Council did not explain this clearly to Mr X. Across three separate responses it gave different reasons for declining to investigate, including that the property belonged to a housing association and that Mr X was not a council tenant. Neither explanation reflected the reason set out in its own ASB policy. This poor communication was fault.
20. The Council consistently directed Mr X to the housing association, which was responsible for managing the neighbour's tenancy, and to the Information Commissioner's Office, which is the appropriate body to consider concerns about CCTV and data protection. Although the Council's explanation lacked clarity, it ultimately signposted Mr X to the correct organisations. I therefore do not consider the poor communication caused a significant personal injustice requiring a remedy.
21. The Council also accepts it responded to Mr X's ASB report six working days later than required by its policy. This was fault. The delay caused Mr X uncertainty about whether his report would be considered. The Council apologised for the delay, which was a suitable remedy for the limited injustice caused.

Complaint handling

22. The Council failed to acknowledge Mr X's complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. However, it subsequently issued its complaint response within the published 20 working day timescale.
23. The complaint response did not explain Mr X's right to complain to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied. This was fault. However, as Mr X had already brought his complaint to us by that stage, the omission caused him no personal injustice. Nevertheless, the Council should remind officers of the need to include Ombudsman signposting in complaint responses.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy to Mr X for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman