Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to notify him about the outcome of an enforcement investigation, failed to respond to complaints and failed to deal with a community trigger request causing anxiety and distress. The Council failed to respond to two complaints made about rats. A suitable remedy for this fault is agreed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide details of the outcome of the enforcement investigation into reports of unauthorised development at the neighbouring property; has failed to respond to complaints made to the single point of contact since July 2022 and failed to deal with his community trigger request.
2. Mr X says he has experienced anxiety and distress as a result of the Council’s failure to take action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. \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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. The Ombudsman previously upheld a complaint made by Mr X (our reference 21 001 670) and a remedy was agreed and provided. I am therefore not considering any issues that were the subject of this previous complaint including some enforcement issues regarding unauthorised development at the neighbouring property and its decision to apply the unacceptable behaviour policy,

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Planning issues

7. Mr X has been raising complaints with the Council for several years. The complaints are related to the actions of his neighbour, a former councillor. Mr X’s contact with the Council about these issues has been significant in number. This resulted in the Council putting in place a single point of contact. While we previously found fault on the application of the Council’s unacceptable behaviour policy, Mr X told me that he is happy with the single point of contact at this time.
8. Our previous complaint, closed in March 2022, found fault in the Council’s failure to provide Mr X with details of the outcome of its planning enforcement investigation about his reports of unauthorised development at the neighbouring property. The information now provided by the Council shows that it wrote to Mr X on 26 September 2022 with the outcome of its enforcement investigation.
9. In the letter to Mr X, the Council explained it had granted retrospective planning permission in September 2020 to retain the fencing and for the erection of a decking area at the rear of the property. It said that it carried out a site visit to the neighbour’s property in September 2020 and was satisfied the fencing and trellis along the boundary was in accordance with the approved plans. It further explained it had inspected the driveway to the front of the property and was satisfied this was built in accordance with permitted development rights.
10. The Council said that it had closed both the above enforcement cases. However, Mr X made a further complaint in October 2023 about the erection of an outbuilding at the neighbouring property. This enforcement case is still under investigation by the Council.
11. I have seen evidence which shows the Council has now notified Mr X of the outcome of its enforcement investigations. Issues with failures in the enforcement process were remedied previously by the Ombudsman and so I will not comment on that further. One issue is still under investigation and I would expect the Council to notify Mr X of the outcome when its investigation is complete. I find no evidence of fault in respect of planning enforcement issues.

Failure to respond to complaints

12. Mr X complains the Council has not responded to complaints made to the single point of contact. He provided me with copies of the complaints made so I was able to ask the Council for details of its response to each one.
13. The Council says that it did not respond to the complaints made on 12 January and 19 March 2023. The complaints concerned issues about communication with the Council, issues with his neighbour and a complaint about the Council’s Chief Executive. The Council has provided a copy of a letter dated 26 September 2022 in which it explained to Mr X that it had reviewed a selection of his correspondence and the Council’s responses. It said it was satisfied that it had provided him with full answers to questions raised. It said it would not enter into any further correspondence with Mr X on any subject relating to his neighbour’s property. It said it had previously offered to attend his property to discuss the boundary and for a pest control contractor to attend and advise at no cost to Mr X. It appears Mr X declined both these offers. The letter also made it clear that Mr X could communicate with the Council on other, separate matters.
14. Mr X had also submitted complaints on 31 March and 4 April 2023. The early complaint was about rats at the Town Hall and the other about rats in the Borough's parks. The Council accepts it did not respond to either of these two complaints and offers an apology.
15. However, it says that it sent a letter to Mr X on 11 December 2023 which was a stage two response to a complaint about rats around the town hall. I note this date is after I made written enquiries to the Council about Mr X’s complaint. It said teams have assessed the situation, removed litter and cleared the area of weeds. It said it had no evidence of an on-going rat infestation and that it would not be proportionate to take any further action such as a baiting programme. It said it would keep the matter under review and take further action in the future if considered necessary.
16. In respect of the rats in the parks, it said its Street Care team had taken action such as removing signage near ponds to discourage the feeding of waterfowl and baited the affected areas. It apologised for not providing a formal response to Mr X as it should have under its complaints’ procedure.
17. Mr X provided details of four complaints he said had not been responded to by the Council. The information provided explains why he did not receive a response to two of the identified complaints. Mr X believes he is being stalked by his neighbour and he says that he is taking action to try and protect himself. Stalking is a criminal offence and so it would be a police matter. On the basis of the information I have seen, the Council has over a period of time, looked into Mr X’s concerns and provided responses. It is entitled to take the view that there is nothing further it can do and that it is not proportionate to keep responding to similar issues. I find no fault in the Council’s decision to notify Mr X that it would not reconsider the same issues already considered about his neighbour.
18. However, it was fault for the Council to fail to consider new matters raised by Mr X within the timescale set out in its complaint procedure. As I have found fault I have to consider what injustice this has caused to Mr X. While the failure to respond is frustrating to Mr X, I do not consider there is any other significant injustice to Mr X and so I will recommend the Council makes a written apology.

Community Trigger (now known as the ASB case review)

19. A community trigger is an action under the Anti Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. It gives victims and communities the right to request a review of their anti social behaviour complaints and brings agencies together to take a joined up, problem solving approach to find a solution. This is a multi-agency process and we can only consider the council’s part in it.
20. The Council follows the procedure set out in the Surrey ASB and Community Harm Reduction Strategy. This says the threshold for the community trigger is for a victim to report three separate but related, anti social incidents to any agency within the previous three months.
21. Mr X has made two community trigger applications. The first was in December 2022. Mr X met the threshold and so his case was considered by the multi-agency panel, chaired by an Independent Person, on 19 April 2023. A letter confirming the outcome was sent to Mr X on 24 April 2023. The letter provided details to actions Mr X may wish to consider such as mediation and a carer’s assessment.
22. Mr X says there was delay in dealing with this community trigger application. The information I have seen shows that although Mr X first contacted the Council on 9 December 2022, the process did not start until March 2023. The Council says this is because it was a multi agency meeting and so consent was required from Mr X in order to share information. When consent was received, the acknowledgement was not sent in the stated three day timescale.
23. There was delay which is fault. While this was frustrating for Mr X, I am not persuaded it caused a significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation. Mr X’s community trigger application was properly considered by a multi agency panel and it notified him of its decision.
24. Mr X began his second application for a community trigger on 15 August 2023. From that date until 16 September he sent a further 27 emails. An assessment to determine whether the threshold for the community trigger had been met was carried out on 20 October. It was determined that Mr X had not met the threshold and so the matter did not progress. The procedure says that there is a route for victims to query the decision about the threshold via the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner and that Mr X had done this.
25. During my initial phone conversation with Mr X, he told me the community trigger was not progressed as his evidence was considered to be out of time. The decision on whether the threshold was met was taken by a multi-agency panel and Mr X has not provided any evidence which would indicate the panel was wrong to say the evidence was outside the six month time limit. On the basis of the information I have seen, there is nothing to suggest any fault by the Council in respect of the second community trigger.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the fault identified above the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Send a written apology to Mr X; and
• Remind staff involved with the single point of contact that new complaints from Mr X should be appropriately responded to in accordance with published timescales.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman