Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports of anti-social behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council considered his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and handled his Community Trigger request. He said the Council also:
• Wrongly issued him a Community Protection Warning and Noise Abatement notice.
• Censored information it provided him after he made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.
2. Mr X said he is experiencing ASB from his neighbour and the Council is favouring his neighbour in its decision making. He said the Council’s actions has affected his mental health and violated his human rights. He wants the Council to answer questions he has asked it and for it to be transparent in its evidence against him.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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.
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his reports of ASB. The Council considered Mr X’s concerns through the Community Trigger. It sought information about the ASB from Mr X and spoke to his neighbour. It sought feedback from other organisations. Following that it decided to close the Community Trigger request. In the closure letter it sent Mr X it set out his concerns and the action it had taken. The Council said his neighbour had addressed the issues raised. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s concerns and conducted the Community Trigger to justify our involvement.
11. The Council said it issued Mr X a Community Protection Warning (CPW) because it had photographic evidence his parking had obstructed other vehicles. In its complaint response, it confirmed it had also issued his neighbour a warning for the same behaviour. There is nothing to suggest the Council treated Mr X unfairly. It has set out its reason for issuing the CPW. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued him a noise abatement notice. That is because Mr X had a right of the appeal to the Court if he disagreed with that decision. There is no good reason Mr X did not use that right of appeal.
13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his Subject Access Request. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the relevant body for dealing complaints about personal information. There is no good reason Mr X does not complain to it, if he is unhappy with how the Council has handled his personal information.
14. Mr X states his neighbour’s action have caused damage to his property. That is a civil matter between Mr X and his neighbour and is a matter for the courts, not the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman