Summary: Ms X complains about the treatment she received from a Council officer who was involved in investigating complaints she made about her neighbour. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the unprofessional attitude of a Council officer, Officer A, and the way she was treated. She says Officer A intimidated her and was biased, disrespectful, demeaning, sexist, ageist and bullying. She wants an apology and for the Council and Officer A to acknowledge the untrue statements and unnecessary remarks made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its responses to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered what she said and listened to the audio clips of noise she provided.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X and her neighbour have a poor relationship which has led to problems over the years. In 2021 Ms X contacted the Council about noise and nuisance caused by her neighbour.
7. The Council investigated and sought to help negotiate a way forward as it found no grounds on which to base any formal enforcement action. Unhappy with the Council’s response, and particularly with the actions of the case officer, Officer A, Ms X complained to the Council.
8. It addressed her concerns in some detail and set out matters about which it could and could not take action. It spoke to Officer A who confirmed it had not been their intention to cause any offence or upset to Ms X. The Council apologised if any remarks made had caused her distress. It found no evidence of bias.
9. It is clear Ms X has been upset by these events but I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to that already carried out by the Council. We cannot prove now what was said between the parties involved and the Council has sought to explain its position with regard to the various issues Ms X raised about her neighbour and Officer A and apologised for any upset. I do not consider an investigation would be likely to lead to a different outcome.
10. In responding to my draft decision Ms X said the actions of Officer A made the problem worse and that the evidence she provided was dismissed. She provided sound clips of noise she had recorded and said what is heard is not kitchen equipment as Officer A had decided it was. However, even if this was the case, DIY works can be undertaken, even if the work is noisy. Ms X also refers to the unacceptable nature of comments made to her by Officer A but we cannot conclude now what was said at the time between the parties involved with no independent corroboration.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman