Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to send Mr X a letter about a complaint of anti-social behaviour it had received about him. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council repeated false accusations made against him by a neighbour without checking their veracity when it sent him a letter about the complaint it had received. He says the letter caused him distress and financial loss as he instructed a solicitor because the letter outlined possible criminal and civil consequences.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X and his neighbour have a poor relationship. The neighbour made a complaint to the Council about the actions of Mr X. The Council wrote to Mr X informing him of the allegation it had received. The letter set out a way for any future problems to be avoided and advised Mr X of possible criminal and civil consequences of the behaviour complained about.
6. Mr X instructed solicitors who complained to the Council on his behalf about the letter he had been sent. The Council explained the letter was advisory only and not a warning letter. It said it had been sent in response to the neighbour’s complaint and was intended to highlight the potential impact and consequences for Mr X.
7. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while the letter could have been better written, there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation. The letter was an informal letter and despite reference to “warning” Mr X about potential criminal and civil consequences of the behaviour alleged, the letter was not a formal Community Protection Warning (CPW) which is sent prior to the issuing of a Community Protection Notice (CPN) used to address ASB.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman