Summary: Mr X complained about the Council failing to take action over obstruction of his driveway. He also complained about its response to allegations about aggressive and intimidating behaviour against his neighbours over parking in the area and data access issues. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council failing to take action over obstruction to his driveway by vehicles parked by his neighbours and others. He says the Council unfairly warned him about aggressive behaviour when it accepted their complaints about him. He also complains about the Council failing to disclose details of the complaints about him and using an incorrect first name on a letter to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X complained to the Council in 2018 about neighbours and visitors parking on the road outside his home and restricting the entry into and out of his driveway. The Council explained to him that it has limited powers over this type of obstruction which is normally a police matter. Mr X submitted photographs of parked vehicles outside his home and the Council told him it could not serve penalties retrospectively and it was unlikely that the Police would do so.
5. Later in 2018 the Council received complaints about Mr X’s attitude to his neighbours over the parking issue and the allegations included intimidating and aggressive behaviour. An officer interviewed Mr X at his home and he says this was unreasonable and disputes the claims made against him. I do not consider there was any fault in this. The Council has a duty to investigate complaints about anti-social behaviour and to make it clear to the public what the consequences may be if they are confirmed.
6. Mr X says his neighbours are guilty of defamation of character. This would be a civil matter and he would need to seek legal advice if he wished to take action against them.
7. When the Council wrote to Mr X about the allegations and his Freedom of Information request is mistakenly used an incorrect first name. I do not consider this caused any significant injustice to Mr X. The letter was correctly addressed and he was the only party who received it.
8. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. There is insufficient evidence of any fault which has caused injustice to Mr X which would warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman