Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a boundary dispute and anti-social behaviour because we cannot investigate the Council’s actions as landlord and it is reasonable to expect Miss X to take property disputes to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains she cannot complete repairs on her property as she is unable to resolve boundary dispute with her Council tenant neighbour. She says the neighbour has displayed acts of anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X requires access through the Council property next door to complete repairs, but the council tenant has refused access. The Council is responsible for the boundary dispute as it owns the land, not the neighbour. Miss X can take court action if the Council does not allow access. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions in the management of its social housing.
9. Miss X complains about damage to her property caused by her neighbour. Most property damage claims are for the courts to resolve. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to make any property damage claim to the Council then pursue the matter in court, through her own insurers as necessary.
10. Miss X says she is unable to sell her property without declaring any neighbour disputes. It is Miss X’s decision whether to sell her property, what price she will accept, and whether she is in a dispute she needs to declare or whether to resolve the matters in court first.
11. Miss X complains of anti-social behaviour by her neighbour following the disagreements. She has described nothing likely to engage the Council’s role as a local authority rather than a landlord, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. So, it is unlikely that further investigation will find fault in how the Council dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it would be reasonable for her to seek a remedy for boundary and access issues in court, and the law stops us from investigating the Council’s management of its social housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman