Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council responded to and investigated complaints from nearby residents about her allegedly excessively feeding wild birds, and it not giving her the residents’ names. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or significant injustice caused to Mrs X by the Council, to warrant investigation. It is reasonable for Mrs X to formally request the identities of the complainants from the Council and refer that matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office if dissatisfied with its response.

The complaint

1. The Council sent Mrs X a letter about her feeding pigeons in her garden and did further follow-up visits. She complains the Council:
1. failed to check whether the person complaining about her alleged excessive feeding of pigeons had spoken to her directly, before complaining to the Council;
2. gave conflicting information about the contact officers had with the complainants and the advice officers gave them;
3. did an excessive number of visits to her property regarding the matter;
4. has failed to give her with the names of the people who complained about her.
2. Mrs X says the matter has caused upset and ill feeling and had an impact on her health. She feels victimised and that her rights were not considered. She feels intimidated and embarrassed by the visits. Mrs X wants the Council to tell her the names of the complainants, and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot say that if the Council had asked the people who complained about Mrs X’s bird-feeding whether they had spoken directly to Mrs X first that this would have prevented the Council issuing its letter to Mrs X and visiting her property to investigate. I recognise Mrs X would have preferred the complainants to speak to her first, as might the Council. But it is not a requirement that complainants speak directly to the person they believe is causing a problem before complaining to a council. The Council may advise that approach, as it is probably the more neighbourly one to use, but they cannot insist on it. A council could not refuse to deal with a complaint solely because the complainant has not spoken with the alleged perpetrator first. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to warrant an investigation.
7. Mrs X says the Council’s officer gave conflicting information about the contact they had had with the complainants, and about the advice officers gave them on speaking to Mrs X first. It is unfortunate if that occurred. But even if it did, it does not cause a significant injustice to Mrs X which would justify us investigating.
8. Mrs X feels three follow-up visits by the Council’s officer was excessive. The Council says the visits were to monitor the situation and look for evidence of many birds in the area. The officer did not identify any issues so closed the case after the final visit and advised Mrs X. We cannot say it was fault for the Council to decide to make a total of four visits here. Officers have discretion to decide how to investigate and assess their cases, which is what they did. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this issue to justify an investigation.
9. Mrs X wants the Council to give her the names of the people who complained about her. The Council has not disclosed that information. We cannot order councils to disclose information to people. If Mrs X believes she is entitled to this information, she should make a formal request to the Council for it. If she is dissatisfied with the outcome, she could then refer the matter to the ICO. The ICO considers whether public bodies such as councils have complied with the relevant data control laws and guidance when responding to information requests. It would be the organisation best placed to consider the matter, and ICO decisions are appealable in the First Tier Tribunal, so it is reasonable for Mrs X to pursue this route for the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to and investigated the matter to warrant investigation;
• there is not enough injustice caused by any conflicting information given to her about its advice to the complainants to justify us investigating;
• it is reasonable for her to make a formal request for the information she seeks, and to refer that matter to the ICO if she is dissatisfied with the outcome of that request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman