The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms U complains about how the Council’s mediation service and anti-social behaviour team dealt with her contacts about a dispute with her neighbour. The Ombudsman’s view is there was no fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms U, complains about how the Council has dealt with her contact with it about a boundary dispute she has with her next-door neighbour (whom I shall refer to as Ms X). Specifically that: the Council’s mediation team provided a poorly worded letter to her neighbour, suggesting that she was unwilling to engage in mediation. That was not what she said to the Council’s officer; the Council did not advise her it has an anti-social behaviour team that could have intervened about anti-social behaviour by her neighbour; when she did contact the anti-social behaviour team, it did not look at a diary she sent it; and the Council referred her to an organisation that never got back in touch with her.
Ms U says the result of the Council’s fault is she is now too frightened to leave the house and her neighbour has caused damage. She asks the Council to acknowledge its mistakes and make changes to its team. She also wants compensation for damages and personal injury.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered Ms U’s complaint to the Ombudsman and supporting documents. I also considered the Council’s case notes.
I have sent my draft decision to Ms U and the Council and considered the responses I received.
What I found
Legal and administrative background Disputes between neighbours about boundaries and shared walls are civil disputes between property owners. The Party Wall Act 1996 provides a framework for preventing and settling disputes. Councils do not usually have a role in the process.
Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It may include verbal and physical threats and harassment. (Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) A council will usually try to deal with ASB informally but if necessary it can use a range of enforcement powers.
The Council has a mediation service. This is not something it has a legal duty to provide. It says the service’s view is mediation is not usually suitable when there legal involvement.
What happened Ms U and Ms X have lived next to each other for many years. A dispute between them began over some building work Ms X undertook. This complaint is about the Council’s response to Ms U’s concerns about Ms X’s escalating harassment from the beginning of 2021. Around this time Ms U says she called the police and instructed a solicitor.
In January 2021 Ms U also telephoned the Council about her dispute with Ms X. She says its adviser told her it did not deal with boundary disputes. The adviser did not mention the Council had an anti-social behaviour team, or that it could mediate.
Mediation In February 2021, a police support officer referred Ms U and Ms X’s dispute to the Council’s mediation service. In his record of his contact with Ms U, the mediator has noted: Ms U’s view was “…things have gone too far now and she had lost trust in her neighbour so would prefer to seek solution through her solicitor”; “It was obvious to me that mediation would be futile… [Ms U] wanted the matter dealt with legally, so I have advised her that I shall close the case”.
The Council’s mediation service wrote to Ms U and Ms X advising it was closing the case, as Ms U had decided not to engage in mediation.
I have seen the Council’s conversation with Ms X, although I cannot share this with Ms U, as it is Ms X’s personal data. But there is nothing in that conversation of any advice outside what was in the letter to Ms X.
Anti-social behaviour In June 2021, Ms U contacted the Council’s anti-social behaviour team. She wanted the anti-social behaviour team to send Ms X a letter, because she was worried Ms X’s works might cause damage. The team’s officer (whom I shall refer to as Officer 1) advised the Council could not assist her with that issue.
The Council also referred Ms U to a third party organisation, due to Ms U telling it about her mental health concerns.
On 9 July Ms U contacted Officer 1 updating him on her solicitor’s contact with Ms X. She asked the Council to contact Ms X to ask her to leave her alone.
In mid-July Ms U contacted the Council’s anti-social behaviour team again. She said there had been damage to her property. She did not have proof who caused it, but her view was it was Ms X. She advised she had asked the police to contact another neighbour to ask for a copy of their CCTV footage, that might show who had caused the damage. She asked the Council to not take any action until she had that evidence.
The police told Ms U it would not contact the other neighbour.
On 24 July Ms U contacted Officer 1 to ask what the Council was doing to assist her. She asked for help about her concerns that Ms X had placed a CCTV camera within her boundary without her knowledge. She also listed Ms X’s damage to her property going back to 2020. She asked for a response to her 9 July contact.
Ms U also wrote to the Council. She noted she was including in the letter a diary she had kept. The letter included some details of recent incidents involving Ms X’s conversations with Ms U’s builders, about issues with their shared passageway. It also included dates of past incidents from October 2020 onwards. These were mainly about issues to do with the dispute. Ms U asked the Council to write to Ms X to tell her to “leave me alone”.
On 26 July Officer 1 emailed Ms U. He said the Council had not replied to her 9 July email as she had said she did not want it to take further action without the CCTV footage. He advised: “[l]ooking into the information you have sent, this is a police matter and without specific evidence, our team are unable to progress your case any further at the moment”.
Ms U responded to ask what would happen if she could not get CCTV footage? On 30 July Officer 1 responded. He advised the Council could not get involved with boundary disputes. And issues with damage and CCTV were for the police if there was criminal damage. He asked Ms U to provide dates of recent harassment if she wanted him to look into that.
At the end of August and again in September, Officer 1 responded to contacts from Ms U to advise the Council would not get involved with boundary disputes or criminal damage. He asked Ms U to list Ms X’s harassment with specific details and times. Ms U responded to note she had provided information in July. She advised she would contact her Member of Parliament (MP).
Complaint response and contact with Ms U’s MP Ms U complained about the Council’s responses. Its July 2021 response advised it: no longer had a record of her January contact, as its policy was to only keep telephone recordings for 90 days. The relevant team did not have any other record; would not advocate drawing any conclusions from either party not wanting to engage in the mediation process.
In November, the Council wrote to Ms U’s MP. Its letter said: it had closed its case, as its anti-social behaviour team’s view was what Ms U was reporting was not anti-social behaviour; Ms U had not been able to explain in detail Ms X’s harassment; the anti-social behaviour team’s assistant manager was happy to discuss that with Ms U, but the decision would stay the same.
Analysis The January 2021 advice Ms U says the Council should have advised her in January 2021 that it had an anti-social behaviour team she could contact about harassment. The Council says it has deleted its record of that conversation, in line with its procedure. Given my findings on the rest of Ms U’s complaint, it would not be a proportionate use of public money to investigate this further.
Mediation The letter to Ms X does reflect the Council’s account of what Ms U told it. I know Ms U says she did not intend to say she had ruled out mediation. But that is a conflict in evidence with what the record says. So I do not have the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to uphold this part of Ms U’s complaint.
Anti-social behaviour With the ASB complaint, the Council says the actions Ms U reported were not matters it would consider. Ms U disagrees with that conclusion. But the decision is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. And the Council was correct to say it would not be appropriate for it to write to Ms X about the boundary matters. Also concerns about CCTV placement and criminal damage are not matters for the Council.
Ms U says officers did not investigate her concerns properly. She cites a diary she sent. I agree that Officer 1’s response could have provided more detail about why he did not consider the evidence she had provided amounted to matters the Council would take action about. But he does say he had considered her contact. So, on balance, the Council was not at fault.
Final decision
I do not see evidence of fault by the Council, so I do not uphold the complaint. I have ended my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Ms U’s complaint about the lack of contact from the third party organisation. The Council did make a referral. Ms U should contact the organisation directly about its lack of contact with her.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman