Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his reports about anti-social behaviour, dog fouling and littering on a piece of land adjacent to his property. There was some fault in that the Council failed to properly escalate Mr X’s complaint. However, the Council apologised for this and took appropriate action to consider his concerns. This was a reasonable remedy to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his reports about antisocial behaviour, litter, dog fouling and noise on land adjacent to his property. He says he has to clear up the land and the activity causes a nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided and the complaint he made. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint. I sent my draft decision to Mr X and to the Council to enable both parties to comment. I considered the comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In April 2019 Mr X contacted the Council to report dog fouling, littering and anti‑social behaviour on green space adjacent to a property he owned. Mr X told the Council youths were loitering there. He said there had been some anti-social behaviour at the site in the past. This included graffiti and nuisance from ball games.
6. The Council’s dog patrol officer carried out two visits at different times on 15 April and 3 May. They found no evidence of dog fouling but “no-fouling” warning stickers were applied in the area. Enforcement officers also visited the area. They did not see evidence of littering or fly-tipping.
7. On 21 May the Council sent a complaint response to Mr X explaining the action it took following his report and complaint. In response, Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint and review the situation as he believed incidents may increase in the summer.
8. The Council failed to escalate the complaint to the second stage of its complaint procedure. In error, it sent Mr X another copy of the letter it sent him on 21 May. This led to a delay in considering his reports further.
9. On 29 August when Mr X contacted the Council again, he stated that there still issues at the site. The individual incidents he referred to had not been reported when they occurred.
10. On receipt of the report the Council shared the complaint with anti-social behaviour officers. They confirmed there was no history of issues at the site. The Council discussed the area at a case conference and carried out a period of monitoring at the site over four weeks. The Council did not establish any significant issues at the site from its monitoring. The Council stated there was insufficient evidence of a problem at the site to warrant targeting its resources there. However, it would review this in future if further reports were made.
11. In August 2019 Mr X had also reported a fence at the site was in poor condition. In September the Council asked the housing team to look at this. They visited the site in October 2019 and agreed funding from Council Members’ budgets to fix it. The work was planned in and expected to be completed by the end of February 2020.
12. In September the Council responded to the complaint setting out the actions it had taken.

Was there fault by the Council

13. The Council acknowledged it made an error when it failed to escalate the complaint in May 2019, and because it could and should have shared the reports from Mr X with anti-social behaviour officers sooner. This would have enabled the history of the site to be checked sooner. The delay in escalating and considering the complaint further was fault by the Council. The Council apologised for this when the error was identified.
14. I understand the delay in escalating the complaint and considering it further may have been frustrating for Mr X. However, there was no history of issues being reported at the site that warranted more action by the Council. So, the faults we identified did not cause any significant injustice to him.
15. The action the Council took after August 2019 was good. It involved various teams to assess and monitor the activity at the site. In addition, the Council followed up on the broken fence Mr X reported. This was a positive response to Mr X’s concerns. The Council found no need to continue to monitor the area as it found no significant issues occurred. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take. It has to decide where it should direct its resources to the greatest effect. The Council has indicated it will agree to review the area in future if there are further reports that warrant this.
16. Mr X told us he felt the Council should sell the land to him if the issues could not be managed. We found no fault beyond the delay in escalating and considering the original complaint. So, I do not have grounds to seek any remedy for Mr X beyond the apology the Council has already given.

Back to top

Final decision

17. There was some fault by the Council but this did not lead to a significant injustice to Mr X. I have now completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman