Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to consider his complaint about a private security camera properly. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider this matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not consider his complaint about a private security camera properly. He also says the Council did not address his concerns or escalate his complaint correctly. He says this has caused him stress and made him distrust the Council.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and given him the opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint Response

4. A private company installed a security camera and lights which overlook a public path next to Mr X’s property. The camera and lights are motion sensitive and issue an audio notice saying, ‘warning you are being recorded’. In February 2019 Mr X complained to the Council the warning was intrusive and made him feel uncomfortable. He wanted the Council to require the company to remove the warning.
5. In its complaint responses the Council said the noise emitted by the camera did not constitute a statutory noise nuisance. It also confirmed the company did not need planning permission to install the camera. Planning permission is only necessary on listed buildings or in conservation areas. The Council said it did not have any powers to resolve Mr X’s concerns. It directed Mr X to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) for his concerns about the camera license and its potential invasiveness.
6. Mr X was unhappy with the Council response as he felt it had not properly considered or responded to his concerns. He was also unhappy a day visit by a Council officer found the camera did not emit a warning and that the Council response focused on whether the camera was a noise nuisance.

Complaint Handling

7. The Council runs a three-stage procedure for corporate complaints. The Stage 2 response to Mr X declined to escalate Mr X’s complaint to Stage 3. The Council also declined Mr X’s further requests for escalation in February and March.
8. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in April 2019. He was referred to the Council to complete its complaint procedure. The Council issued a second Stage 2 response in May 2019 and Stage 3 in October 2019.
9. Mr X says the Council’s failure to follow its complaint procedure has made him distrustful of its behaviour and statements.

Analysis

10. Although Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s complaint responses or how it handled his complaints, I do not find it caused him enough injustice to justify investigation. The Council did not have any powers to help Mr X and appropriately referred him to the ICO.
11. The ICO is the body best placed to consider matters of CCTV use. It is open to Mr X to contact the ICO to consider how the camera is impacting on him.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman