Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports that birds were causing a statutory nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her reports that her neighbour’s birds were causing her a nuisance. She said she had to chase the Council to update her on its investigation and that it failed to register her online complaint. She disagrees with the Council’s decision the birds were not a nuisance. She wants the Council to apologise for its lack of service to her.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Following Ms X’s report to the Council about her neighbour’s birds, the Council contacted Ms X, considered photographic evidence she provided and wrote to her neighbours. It initially decided there was not a statutory nuisance. It then visited Ms X’s property and after seeking advice from its legal team decided there was a nuisance. It issued an Abatement Notice to her neighbours.
7. The Council said it spent several weeks trying to contact her neighbours to confirm they had complied with the Notice. However, that was unsuccessful. It sought further legal advice and decided not to enforce the Notice. It said that was because it was not satisfied it would achieve a successful conviction and that prosecution was not in the public interest. It said it contacted Ms X with that decision.
8. Although Ms X is unhappy with that outcome, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered Ms X’s evidence, applied its policy on enforcement and sought appropriate advice. There is not enough evidence of fault with the steps the Council took to investigate her concerns to justify our involvement.
9. Ms X is also unhappy with how the Council communicated with her during its investigation. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. Any injustice Ms X experienced around the Council’s communication is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
10. We will also not investigate how the Council initially dealt with Ms X’s online complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman