Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints of anti-social behaviour by his neighbour. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has failed to take action to address the anti-social behaviour of his next-door neighbour which is causing him and his elderly mother distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. There is a history of bad neighbour relations between Mr B and his next-door neighbour. In 2018 the Ombudsman considered an earlier complaint from Mr B about similar matters but found no evidence of fault by the Council.
5. Since the Ombudsman’s decision on his last complaint, Mr B says his neighbour is now “going about things in a roundabout way” and that about once or twice a week the neighbour will make a sarcastic comment or come out of his door at the same time Mr B is leaving or entering his own property and might point and laugh at him. Mr B says other residents have complaints about the same neighbour.
6. Mr B says the loud music his neighbour had been playing is not currently a problem but that the neighbour has somehow attempted to use the postman to obtain information about Mr B.
7. More recently Mr B says he has heard from other residents that the neighbour has been spreading lies about him, including lies about his financial standing.

Assessment

8. While I understand Mr B and his mother are stressed and anxious about the behaviour of the neighbour, as it has been described by Mr B it is not currently of a nature against which the Council can take action.
9. Mr B says he has been advised by the police to ignore the neighbour and that he has been doing this. The Council is unable to take action against the lies the neighbour has been reported as spreading about Mr B. The actions of the postman do not fall within the Council’s responsibility and Mr B says he has already made a complaint to the Royal Mail about the postman’s behaviour.
10. Mr B says he has been passed between the police and the Council when he has made his complaints about his neighbour. He has been told that criminal matters are for the police to deal with and, while he would like the Council to issue a warning notice against the neighbour, there do not appear to be sufficient grounds for it to consider taking such action. This is particularly the case when, as Mr B has acknowledged, the neighbour’s behaviour is not of a strongly confrontational nature. If this situation changes, Mr B can make a new report to the Council and/or the police depending on what occurs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman