Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has failed to take action regarding the nuisance he is suffering from pigeons. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council has failed to take action regarding the nuisance he is suffering from pigeons.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation,
• 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Mr B provided, the Council’s response to his MP’s enquiry, his photographs and his comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B told us he has been complaining about the problems caused by pigeons for more than five years. People must bring their complaint to us within twelve months of becoming aware of the matter. Mr B has not done so. It was open to him to pursue a formal complaint sooner.
7. Mr B told us it is the owner of the property on an adjacent site who caused the problem in the first place. The Council has recommended that Mr B should contact the property owner to seek a resolution. Mr B told us he would be threatened with a summons if he did not pay his council tax but the Council has failed to help him.
8. In March 2021 the Council sent an email to Mr B’s MP about the pigeon issue and another matter. The Council said it had decided the pigeons are not causing a statutory nuisance so it will not take formal action. The Council said its officer advised he had not observed pigeon activity at the site on a number of occasions when he visited the area.
9. Mr B has told us about the negative effects of the pigeons on his family and property. He disagrees with the Council’s decision that the pigeons are not causing a statutory nuisance. We are not an appeal body with powers to overrule the Council’s decision. The question of whether there is statutory nuisance is a matter for the professional judgement of the Council’s officers, not for us. Without evidence of a statutory nuisance, the Council cannot take formal action.
10. When the Council received Mr B’s complaint about nuisance from pigeons it should have investigated it and decided whether it was a statutory nuisance. The Council’s officer has attended the site to observe the pigeon activity. The Council has taken the steps we would expect it to have taken. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman