Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint alleging the Council failed to deal with her complaints of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour properly. This is because the Council has admitted fault in the complaints investigation and provided Mrs X with a proportionate remedy. We are unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly respond to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), noise nuisance and harassment from a neighbour. She says the Council did not adequately investigate her reports, failed to consider evidence she provided, and did not keep in adequate contact with her.
2. Mrs X says she was caused severe distress and anxiety causing her to leave her home.
3. She says she is now forced to bear the costs of maintaining two homes. She would like compensation, an investigation and action taken against the neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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)

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. Mrs X complains of an inadequate Council response to her complaints about suffering harassment by a neighbour. Mrs X says there was a failure to return calls or respond to emails which caused significant distress, affected her mental health, and led to her leaving her home and incurring additional financial costs.
9. Mrs X highlights the Council’s poor complaint handling, at stage one, when it included incorrect information (referring to a home visit by an officer that did not occur plus referring her to the wrong Ombudsman).
10. At stage two of the Council’s complaints investigation, the Council accepted fault in its earlier response to Mrs X. It also said there were delays and shortcomings in some of its communications when she reported ASB. It agreed there were inaccuracies in the Stage 1 complaints response and that it provided incorrect Ombudsman information. The Council offered £350 to recognise these faults.
11. However, the Council denied faults in its overall action to the reports of ASB. It explained that the behaviour complained of did not meet the threshold for legal action against the neighbour, but it had issued a community protection warning. It said there was evidence of the Council considering Mrs X’s reports, taking initial action and monitoring the situation. It concluded there was insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council decided further action against the neighbour complained of could not be justified.
12. The Council also wrote that certain issues in the neighbour dispute were outside of its control, such as the neighbour’s use of CCTV, defamation plus criminal damage to property. It also advised her how to contact victim support and community mental health.
13. We will not investigate. This is because the Council acknowledged fault in its complaint’s response, apologised and offered a proportionate financial remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s substantive handling of the reports of ASB. Thresholds for action against the neighbour fall to the professional judgement of the ASB officers and, as outlined in paragraph five, if the Council has considered the ASB properly we would not investigate however dissatisfied the complainant is with the outcome. Further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council already provided a remedy and further investigation is unlikely to add anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman