Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council entering a property he owns and seizing his belongings due to noise nuisance caused by his son. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. A court granted the Council a warrant and will decide what happens to the belongings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council entered a property he owns, where his son was living, and seized belongings including a personal computer. Mr X says the Council failed to contact him and, although he was stranded abroad due to Covid-19, he might have been able to defuse the situation. Mr X says the Council acted without compassion for his son who has mental health problems and was causing noise nuisance. His son threatened suicide and was later convicted and imprisoned. Mr X says the Council has refused to return his belongings which he wants it to do. He says the Council should apologise and change its policy and practice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information and comments and the Council’s reply to his complaint dated 28 June 2021. I have considered the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Back to top

My assessment

4. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Ombudsman cannot achieve what he wants:
5. The Council has used its legal powers to stop noise nuisance. A court considered the matter and gave the Council a warrant to enter the property and seize goods causing the nuisance. The Council says informing Mr X could have defeated the purpose of entry.
6. The Ombudsman cannot intervene in a legal case. The Council says the belongings are in storage as evidence in the prosecution of Mr X’s son/a forfeiture case. The Council says the court will decide ownership of the goods. It has advised Mr X on the type of evidence he could supply of ownership.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council entered a property he owns and seized his belongings due to noise nuisance caused by his son. We cannot achieve what Mr X wants. A court granted the Council a warrant to enter and will decide the case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman