Summary: Mr X complains on behalf of himself and his neighbours Mr and Mrs Y. He said the Council has failed to respond and investigate their complaints of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour; incorrectly took action against them following many letters of unsubstantiated claims and failed to respond to their correspondence. The Council has upheld some parts of the complaint around lack of responses to correspondence and Mr X has received an appropriate remedy. We do not propose anything further.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains on behalf of himself and his neighbours Mr and Mrs Y. He said the Council has:
1. failed to respond and investigate their complaints of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour;
2. incorrectly taken action against them following may letters of unsubstantiated claims; and
3. failed to respond to their correspondence.

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’. 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)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
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. I have investigated parts a, b and c of the complaint. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to not disclose information to Mr X as part of a subject access request. This is because the information commissioner’s officers consider complaints about freedom of information.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy

8. The Council accepts complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in person, on the telephone or online. If someone makes a complaint, officers will contact them within three working days in order to take the details so they can assess what needs to be done.
9. If the Council decides to investigate a complaint of ASB, an investigating officer will write a report and open a case file, including all relevant updates. The officer will assess the case to decide how to progress it towards a resolution. The case assessment will take into account the nature and seriousness of the ASB. It would also take into account the effect on the complainant and other people, including any risk of harm and the views of the complainant.

The Council’s procedure for investigating noise complaints

10. When investigating noise complaints, the Council will acknowledge the complaint, arrange site visits and respond within the response framework in local procedures.
11. Where a visit it not initially practicable, an acknowledgement letter with noise diary sheets shall be sent. Where the diary sheets are returned and they indicate a potential statutory nuisance, the Council may take further action as part of the investigation.

Back to top

Summary of the key events

12. The Council wrote to Mr X in May 2023. It said it had received further complaints regarding him feeding a large number of pigeons. The Council said it had received evidence showing a large number of birds flocking around his and neighbouring properties. It said this was causing a nuisance and he was advised to refrain from leaving food out.
13. In response Mr X said on the 1 June 2023:
• he had lived at the property for 40 years with no problems until his neighbour moved in;
• historically there was someone who lived several doors down who bred and raced pigeons. That neighbour moved away and liberated the pigeons into the local area;
• he had spent a lot of money on his property and did not want birds defecating anywhere; and
• around three years ago issues began with his neighbour which included intimidation and verbal abuse.
14. The Council wrote to Mr X late July 2023. It said it had received a complaint about feeding pigeons. It said there was no law against feeding the wildlife, but the regular scattering of food scraps tends to attract large numbers of pigeons that circle the area causing a nuisance. The Council asked Mr X to refrain from leaving food out.
15. In response Mr X said no one from the Council had responded to his letter from the 1 June. He said his neighbour had been taking photographs of Mr and Mrs Y and peering into their back bedrooms. He said the neighbour had also made threats.
16. The Council visited Mr Y at home in October 2023. He told the Council he had been feeding the birds and was asked to stop.
17. The Council made attempts to visit Mr X twice in October 2023 to discuss the issues he had raised but he was not home. The Council left a card asking him to make contact.
18. The Council hand delivered a community protection warning (CPW) to Mr X and Mr and Mrs Y’s address in November 2023 in relation to the excessive bird feeding.
19. Mr X contacted the Council and said he had written to it many times and had been ignored. He said the neighbour stalks them, plays loud music at all hours, bangs on the bin lids, bangs on the connecting wall, takes photographs of the garden and peers through the windows.
20. On the 13 November 2023 Mr X said he and Mr and Mrs Y had requested two separate subject access requests. He said the Council said it was unable to find a legitimate interest in Mr X being provided with the personal information requested and therefore would not disclose the information. Mr X said he submitted a further subject access request.
21. The Council told Mr X the CPW was only a warning and said if he was not feeding the birds, there was nothing to worry about. It said it had visited his property twice but had no call back from him. But it said it was still happy to meet to discuss the matter. It apologised for not responding to his letters and asked Mr X to email them directly if the ASB was ongoing.
22. Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He said:
• there had been several issues with the neighbour and he detailed this in letters to the Council in 2023;
• the police had advised him the Council was responsible for addressing ASB;
• the Council is protecting the neighbour; and
• the Council must rescind the CPW.
23. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints process. It said:
• the Council investigates matters such as noise nuisance, neighbour nuisance, environmental crime, some community ASB issues, statutory nuisance and public health issues;
• any complaints Mr X has about intimidating, and aggressive behaviour or physical violence must be directed to the police;
• its role was to investigate the numerous complaints it had received regarding the feeding of birds at the property. It said these complaints have been received by the department since 2018;
• the officer was not aware of the other allegations of ASB until Mr X’s recent email in November 2023. It said the officer asked Mr X to email them directly if there were any ongoing ASB issues. This was because they needed further information before they could investigate;
• it apologised for the lack of responses to emails and letters;
• to investigate the allegations of bird feeding, officers were required to visit the property several times. They then use their professional judgement in determining the most appropriate course of action. It said this was made more difficult as they could not speak with Mr X directly as he did not answer the door; and
• the CPW issued was appropriate.
24. In December 2023 the Council told Mr X the CPW could not be rescinded as it was just a warning. It said no further action had been taken. It said if issues were ongoing, it would investigate and gave Mr X details of who to contact.
25. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated in the same month.
26. In January 2024, Mr X wrote to the Council to make a complaint against his neighbour. This was in relation to intimidation, verbal threats and loud music against Mr and Mrs Y’s adjoining wall. He said the Council needed to rescind the CPW.
27. In response the Council said:
• his complaint related to both ASB and noise nuisance. It had different means of recording, investigating and seeking solutions for each;
• moving forward, Mr X would need to keep a log of any ASB for the next two to three weeks;
• as Mr and Mrs Y were affected by the noise, they needed to make a complaint; and
• it attached the relevant diary sheets for Mr X to complete.
28. The Council provided Mr X with its final complaint’s response on 12 January 2024. It said:
• the stage one response was a thorough investigation but said it had cited some incorrect dates and apologised;
• the CPW was not a legal notice and no formal notice had been served;
• officers made several attempts to contact Mr X to discuss his complaints, but it received no response;
• officers remain available to discuss the details of the complaints regarding the feeding of birds to provide advice;
• to assist further it requested the CPW be reworded to make it clear that usual low level garden bird feeding is not a problem. But the excessive feeding is; and
• the team would investigate his recent complaint about his neighbour.
29. On the 18 January 2024 Mr X told the Council he had not received a copy of the reworded CPW. The Council agreed to send the letters in the next couple of days.
30. The Council visited all parties including the neighbour in February 2024 to discuss the issues raised. It was noted Mr X asked if the CPW was going to be re-written.
31. The Council issued a CPW to Mr X in March 2024. It said the acts of ASB he had been involved in included:
• excessive bird feeding which encouraged and attracted large flocks of pigeons;
• being verbally abusive towards the neighbour on several occasions;
• purposefully obstructing the view of a CCTV camera at the neighbours; and
• entering the neighbours land without permission despite being advised not to by police.
32. The Council issued a CPW to Mr Y in the same month. It said the acts of ASB he had been involved in included;
• excessive feeding of wild birds and pigeons. This included him depositing large amounts of bird feed on bird tables, on the ground and roof areas; and
• reports of provoking behaviour which has included putting pigeon related signs up in view of the neighbour.
33. Both CPW’s detailed what the Council required of Mr X and Mr Y. This included refraining from excessive bird feeding, not engaging in any threatening behaviour and not approaching the neighbour. The Council also asked them both to reconsider mediation.
34. The Council also issued a CPW to the neighbour. The Council asked the neighbour to not engage or threaten to engage in any behaviour which may cause harassment, alarm or distress. It also asked them not to approach Mr X or Mr Y and not to tamper with the partition fence. The neighbour was also asked to reconsider mediation.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Part a of the complaint

35. From the evidence seen, Mr X sent the Council a letter in June 2023. He detailed some historical issues that had occurred with his neighbour. He said the police had historically been involved due to an assault. In July 2023 Mr X told the Council he had not had a response. He said the neighbour had made threats and had taken pictures of Mr and Mrs Y.
36. The Council attempted to visit Mr X twice in October 2023 to discuss the concerns he raised and speak to him about the complaints about the excessive bird feeding. But as Mr X did not answer, the Council left him a card to return the call. The Council said it did not hear back from Mr X.
37. The Council has acknowledged it failed to respond to Mr X’s original letters. It told us it believes the lack of response was due to unplanned staff absences. It has apologised to Mr X.
38. I acknowledge that Mr X’s initial letter in June 2023 did not specify that the issues were ongoing. But the Council should have responded to this and the July 2023 letter. This is fault that has been acknowledged. I consider the apology provided to be a sufficient remedy.
39. As stated in paragraph 36 the Council attempted to visit Mr X twice with no response. Mr X was advised in November 2023 to contact the Council if the ASB was ongoing. This was because the Council needed more information. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2024, and the Council began its investigation.
40. The Council said the noise complaint was not considered to be a statutory nuisance and this was closed. This was a decision the Council was entitled to take. In regard to the ASB, the Council said it received no evidence of this through the diary sheets.
41. The Council issued CPW’s to Mr X, Mr Y and the neighbour in March 2024. This is detailed in paragraph 31, 32 and 34. Therefore the Council has considered Mr X’s complaints and made a professional judgement. It decided issuing a CPW was the most appropriate action. This was a decision for the Council to take and there is no fault in how it came to this decision.

Part b of the complaint

42. The Council told Mr X in May 2023 that it had received further complaints about excessive bird feeding. It said it had evidence of large flocs of birds around his property and advised him to refrain from leaving food out. The Council received further complaints in July 2023 about the same issues and advised Mr X to refrain from leaving food out.
43. The Council visited Mr X and Mr Y in October 2023 to discuss this. As stated previously Mr X did not respond. But Mr Y said he had been feeding the birds. The Council issued the CPW in November 2023 to both Mr X and Mr Y in relation to excessive bird feeding which was causing a nuisance. We could not criticise the Council for this. It said it received several complaints and had video evidence of large accumulations of pigeons. It therefore made a professional judgement which it was entitled to do.
44. Mr X asked the Council to rescind the CPW. But the Council said it was just a warning and said it had been issued appropriately. Mr X continued to ask for it to be rescinded. In the Council’s final complaints response in January 2024, it said it had requested the CPW be reworded. This was to make it clear that usual low level garden bird feeding is not a problem. But the excessive feeding is. On the 18 January 2024 it said the Council agreed to send the letters in the next couple of days.
45. The Council did not reword the CPW until it issued a further CPW in March 2024. The Council told us it was always the intention for the Council to rewrite the CPW, if the reissuing was still deemed necessary. It said this is what the officer was trying to establish and resolve informally.
46. I think the Council should have made this clearer to Mr X in its complaint’s response, before agreeing to rewrite it and before agreeing to send it out in January 2024. This is fault. But I do not consider this to have caused a significant injustice to Mr X. This is because the Council was working with Mr X during this time to investigate his complaint.

Part c of the complaint

47. As stated under part a of the complaint, the Council did fail to respond to some of Mr X’s initial complaints. But from the evidence seen, the Council has responded to the remaining parts of Mr X’s correspondence within a reasonable time.
48. Mr X told us the Council failed to respond to his subject access request. But from the evidence seen, Mr X contacted the Council in November 2023. He said the Council has refused to provide him with the information he requested and submitted a further request. As stated in paragraphs 3 and 5 the information commissioner’s officers considers complaints about freedom of information. Therefore, if Mr X remains unhappy with the Council refusing the request, it is reasonable to expect him to complain to the information commissioner’s office.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation. The actions already undertaken have provided an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused by fault and we do not propose anything further.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman