Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions after she reported incidents involving anti-social behaviour. She also complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the same matter. We should not investigate this complaint further, as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council did not properly consider her complaint about the actions of another person, which she said amounted to anti-social behaviour (ASB) against her. She also said the Council did not respond to these reports of ASB in the proper manner and did not reply to her complaints in line with its own complaints policy.
2. Miss X said the Council caused her unnecessary frustration and stress by its actions.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Miss X provided.
5. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
6. I considered the Council’s corporate complaints procedure.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. The Council’s complaint procedure says it aims to reply to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. It says some complaints may take longer. It says where the complainant is not happy, they can ask for a review at stage two. The Council says it will acknowledge this request within two days and reach a decision within 20 working days.

What happened

9. In early April, Miss X contacted the Council to make an allegation of ASB related issues. She said another named person was responsible and it was affecting her enjoyment of her allotment. Miss X sent the Council a breakdown of the relevant incidents over the preceding week.
10. About a week later, the Council acknowledged Miss X’s email and replied saying it had acted in response. The email did not say what this action was.
11. The following day, Miss X told the Council about a further incident where she alleged the same named person had behaved in an inappropriate manner toward her and her child. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s new ASB related complaint that same day.
12. In mid-May, Miss X asked the Council for an update. Several days later, the Council said it had responded again and taken action but did not say what action it had taken.
13. Miss X queried this and when she did not get a reply, in late May, she made a formal complaint. As part of this complaint, she said because of the nature of a previous Ombudsman recommendation, the Council should have explained the ASB Community Trigger process to her as part of its earlier replies.
14. In mid-June, 11 working days later, the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint. It’s reply said it had investigated Miss X’s ASB allegation and found it was unproven. It accepted it had not included advice about the Community Trigger process. It also signposted Miss X to the police to report any allegations of crime.
15. That same day, Miss X asked for the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of the complaint procedure. In late June, Miss X followed this up because she said the Council had not acknowledged her stage two request.
16. The Council sent Miss X an email in late June, saying it was considering her request. In early August, Miss X complained to us, and we asked the Council if it had investigated Miss X’s complaint at its second stage.
17. In early September, the Council sent Miss X a final reply, apologising that she had had to make a complaint. It explained it had considered her allegation and listened to a video she had sent it. It also said it had questioned the person Miss X had alleged behaved in an inappropriate manner, and because of what they said about the incident, it decided there was not enough evidence to substantiate her allegation.
18. The Council also accepted it had not included a paragraph explaining the ASB Community Trigger process and told her it had reminded staff to do this in future.

My findings

19. Before we begin or continue our investigations, we consider two, linked questions, which are:
• Is it likely there was fault?
• Is it likely any possible fault caused an injustice to this complainant?
20. If at any point during our involvement with a complaint, we are satisfied the answer to either question is no, we may decide:
• not to investigate; or
• to end an investigation we have already started.
21. Our investigations need to be proportionate. We may consider any fault or injustice to the individual complainant in its wider context, including the significance of any fault we might find and its impact on others, as well as the costs and disruption caused by our investigations.
22. I have considered the Council’s first and second replies to Miss X’s initial complaint about how it responded to the alleged ASB. It appears to be a comprehensive account setting out the actions the Council took in response to the issues Miss X raised with it.
23. We would only criticise a decision the Council took, where it appears an obviously flawed decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating the Council’s decision, that it could not substantiate Miss X’s allegations.
24. Miss X said the Council was at fault because it did not tell her about the ASB Community Trigger process in line with an earlier recommendation we had made. Any fault there was here has not caused Miss X an injustice because she was aware of this process already and therefore not impacted. I also note the Council has committed to resolving this for other complainants.
25. Finally, the Council’s corporate complaint procedure says where it reviews a complaint at stage two, it should do so within 20 working days. The Council’s response was late. Notwithstanding any fault there was in the Council’s delay here, has not caused Miss X a significant enough injustice to investigate further. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures only, where we choose to use our discretion not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I am ending my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman