Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about officers of the Council allegedly harassing the complainant by attending her property without her consent and looking through her windows. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss X) complains the Council carried out an unauthorised visit to her property. She says Council officers also looked into her property through the windows without her consent in order to intimidate her.
2. In summary, Miss X says this incident breached her right to privacy and resulted in her feeling harassed. Further, she says she suffers from poor mental health and that the alledged fault has caused her symptoms to worsen. As a desired outcome, Miss X wants the Council to acknowledge its actions, apologise to her and provide a compensatory payment for harassment.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. On a day in early November 2024, the Council carried out an inspection of a building containing a number of its social housing properties. Earlier that day, it sent Miss X a phone message asking if she was available to provide Council officers access to her property for the purposes of the inspection. In response, Miss X responded that she was not available given the short notice and this was noted by the Council. Despite this, Miss X complains the Council knocked on her door and looked through her windows which she found highly intimidating.
6. The Council denies any officer knocked on Miss X’s door or looked through her windows during an inspection of the building on 5 November 2024. The Council says there was no reason for this given it messaged Miss X on the day of the inspection to enquire whether she would be home for a visit and that it received a response she would not be. There is a clear conflict of accounts as to what happened and I have not been provided any evidence by Miss X to support what she alleges. I am also inclined to agree with the Council’s point that its contact with Miss X that day negated any need for it to seek access to her property. There is insufficient evidence of fault in my view to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman