Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to numerous complaints he has made about various issues. We will not investigate the complaint because the limited injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the claimed fault is insufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to numerous complaints he has made about various matters, including repairs to the footpath, hedges overhanging the pavement and officers turning a blind eye to fly-tipping. He says he is hindered when he walks along the footpath and that the Council, by failing to uphold Acts of Parliament, does not provide a good service or value for money. He says he wants a complete reform.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Over time, Mr X made numerous different complaints to the Council covering a variety of issues, mainly relating to anti-social behaviour in his area.
6. The Council wrote to Mr X in August 2020 and again in February 2021 to address the issues he had raised. In responding to him, the Council explained the difference between service requests and complaints about a service. It also explained the data protection restrictions in place which prevented it from giving him third party information.
7. In its last letter, the Council considered eight issues Mr X had raised which included overgrown hedges, repairs to footpaths, fly tipping and rubbish collection. It also addressed his concerns about the customer service he had received. Having done so, it found no grounds to take further action and instead warned Mr X that the volume of his communication would be monitored and that it might consider placing restrictions on him if it continued at the same level.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Mr X complained to us.

Assessment

9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we consider not only the claimed fault but also the injustice caused to the complainant.
10. In this case, it appears that neither the claimed fault nor the injustice caused to Mr X are sufficient to warrant an investigation. The Council adequately responded to the various issues Mr X raised and while he may believe he, as a rate payer, is not getting value for money, we cannot investigate complaints which affect all ratepayers because such a complaint falls under the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 as it would affect all or most of the people in the Council’s area.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the limited injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the claimed fault is insufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman