Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about a series of investigations by the Council’s environmental health department. This is because it concerns matters which are either late, and/or carried appeal rights the complainant could have used. A complaint of harassment by a neighbour, and the Council’s failure to disclose information, are best addressed by other bodies.

The complaint

1. The complainant, to whom I will refer as Mr J, says the Council has facilitated harassment by his neighbour by repeatedly investigating him for environmental health issues since 2016.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe 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

6. I reviewed Mr J’s correspondence with the Council.
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr J owns a property in the Council’s area.
9. In 2016, a neighbour complained that building work was being undertaken at unreasonable times on Mr J’s property. After an investigation, the Council issued him a notice under the Control of Pollution Act, requiring him to restrict the work to certain times. Mr J did not use his right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court against this notice.
10. In 2018 and early 2019, the Council investigated another complaint about a noise nuisance in the area. The Council says it struggled to identify the source of this noise, but after writing informally to Mr J in April 2019, the noise stopped.
11. In December 2019, the Council investigated a complaint from Mr J’s neighbour of a light shining from his property. It served Mr J with an abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act. Mr J did not use his right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court against this notice.
12. Mr J complained to the Council it was facilitating harassment by his neighbour by its series of investigations. He also said it had not provided him with any of the evidence it had gathered during its investigations.
13. The Council responded that it had a duty to investigate his neighbour’s complaints, and pointed out Mr J had not used his right of appeal against the notices it had served.
14. In August 2020, Mr J referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

15. The law says complainants should approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to pursue. The first two incidents Mr J complains about were in 2016, and early 2019, and are therefore late. He has not provided any reason for his delay in approaching the Ombudsman and we therefore cannot exercise discretion to accept these complaints.
16. The law also says the Ombudsman should not investigate a complaint, where the substantive matter carries an appeal right which can and should be used. In this case, the Council’s notices under the Control of Pollution Act and the Environmental Protection Act both carry the right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, neither of which Mr J used.
17. Even if I were to investigate these points, the Ombudsman’s role is only to review the Council’s adherence to procedure. We could not make our own decision whether it was appropriate to serve the notices, as this is not our role, and we could not overturn the Council’s decision to serve them, which is the main source of injustice Mr J perceives here.
18. Mr J complains the series of investigations is part of a campaign of harassment by his neighbour. However, as the Council has said, it has a duty to investigate such complaints when it receives them. The Council cannot simply disregard a complaint from Mr J’s neighbour, regardless of his perception of their motives. If Mr J considers his neighbour is harassing him, this is a matter for the police.
19. Mr J also complains the Council has not disclosed to him the evidence it gathered during its investigations. In my experience, local authorities will typically not disclose evidence in cases such as this, for reasons of data protection.
20. Moreover, complaints about a failure to disclose information are a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Ombudsman would only consider such an issue where it was inextricably linked to a complaint we were investigating. In this case, for the reasons I have given, I do not consider we should investigate this complaint.
21. Mr J has also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint, which he describes as a ‘whitewash’. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue, and so we will not investigate this matter in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman