Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of nuisance. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide visible enforcement. He said the Council did not respond to his reports of nuisance and a licence breach.
2. He said there is a concern for public safety due to limited monitoring, and it impacts his sleep, anxiety and privacy. He wants the Council to provide monthly reports, an independent monitoring review, a public interest report and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended.)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his reports of nuisance and there was no visible enforcement during a weekend in May 2025.
8. The Council accepted that it did not acknowledge a report Mr X made and apologised. It confirmed that it received it, logged the information and it contributed to its ongoing monitoring.
9. The Council explained to Mr X that it must usually witness a licencing breach before it can take enforcement action. It said its out of hours service was not operating on the weekend Mr X complained of because of staffing limitations. It set out the hours the service usually operates and said it had provided details of the licencing appeals process Mr X requested.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council apologised for not acknowledging Mr X’s report which is an appropriate response for any injustice caused. It explained why it’s out of hours service was not operating and set out the hours it aimed to cover. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. Mr X also raised concerns to us about several other venues in the borough. However, the complaint Mr X made to the Council related to one premises. Mr X should raise a complaint with the Council regarding the other premises so it can provide a response.
12. If Mr X believes the Council did not respond to his Subject Access Request or Freedom of Information request correctly, that would be a matter for the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman