Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Anti-Social Behaviour. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is another body better placed to consider some parts of this complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
2. She says the Council:

• Refused to conduct a case review
• Failed to investigate failures of other parties to act on the ASB over a prolonged period

3. Ms X says this caused her distress, prolonged uncertainty, time to chase and led to a loss of trust in statutory agencies.
4. She says the Council should:

• Provide a formal apology
• Investigate the conduct of the officer who refused to conduct a case review
• Review her landlord’s failure to act on ASB reports
• Reassess the compensation offered so it is in line with the Council’s policy to reflect prolonged distress, risk and loss of trust

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council has acknowledged processes were not recorded as an ASB Case Review. However, it says this did not affect the steps taken, timeframes or outcome of the investigation.
10. It has apologised for the administrative error which caused this and put steps in place to prevent the situation re-occurring. It has investigated and found no procedural misconduct by the officer concerned.
11. An ASB Case Review took place within a few weeks of Ms X’s request, and a second review took place a few months later. The reviews led to a clear and comprehensive action plan. Any delay cannot have had a significant impact on the outcome. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
12. The Council offered Ms X compensation. She says this does not reflect the impact on her and is not in line with the Council’s policy. I understand the impact of the ASB could be considerable and ongoing for Ms X. However, the Council’s payment was to reflect the distress caused by the administrative error.
13. The amount offered is in line with the Council’s policy for events which have caused an injustice and there is evidence of a moderate degree of inconvenience or distress. I consider this reflects the distress caused by the administrative error. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
14. Ms X complains the Council did not investigate her landlord’s failure to act on her ASB reports. The Council has limited powers in this respect. Ms X can complain to the Housing Ombudsman about the actions of her landlord. We will not investigate these matters as there is a body better placed to consider them.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is another body better placed to consider some parts of this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman