Summary: We will not investigate how the Council dealt with Miss X’s complaint about a seagull nest on the roof of her block. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to address a seagull nest on the roof of her block that poses a danger to her and her family during nesting season.
2. She also complained about not receiving a financial remedy promised by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation,
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as tenant management organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained to the Council’s Pest Control section that her family ran the risk of being attacked by seagulls for about eight weeks each year during nesting season.
7. The Council advised Miss X that seagulls did not represent a statutory nuisance, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It also said they were protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It advised Miss X this was a matter for her landlord.
8. Miss X asked if netting could be installed and reported she had found contractors who could organise this. The Council’s Pest Control section inspected the area complained of and passed Miss X’s request on to her landlord: a tenant management organisation.
9. Miss X then submitted a corporate complaint about the lack of progress on her concerns. In response the Council awarded her £50.00 for its delays in responding to her complaint. It also upheld her complaint as it found it had failed to let her know that authorisation for scaffolding (needed to check if netting could be installed) had not been provided by her landlord.
10. The Council also advised that seagulls were known for ‘site fidelity’ in that they tended to return to the same area annually. So, it could not prevent them returning to nest. However, it said Miss X could raise the matter again next year if the problem persists for it to possibly consider again subject to budgetary constraints.
11. Since sending in her complaint, the Council has provided Miss X with the remedy offered in its complaint response.
12. We will not investigate. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.
13. Further, we have no remit to investigate the actions of the tenant management organisation who is responsible for Miss X’s block.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman