The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the length of the Council’s email address and lack of information sharing between its anti-social behaviour and environmental health teams. The Council has provided a satisfactory response to the complainant’s concerns, and we consider further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains the email address for the Council’s environmental health team is too long. He says this caused him to make an error when sending an email which caused the Council not to receive his requests for help.
He also complains the Council’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) team was not aware that footage from video doorbells cannot be used as evidence in noise complaints.
Mr X wants the Council to pay him compensation to ensure it changes the email address and shares information between teams, so all officers are aware of the best course of action for a person making a noise nuisance complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X was given a video doorbell by the Council’s ASB team in response to his concerns about ASB.
Mr X sent an email to the Council’s environmental health team as he wanted help with a noise nuisance that he was experiencing. Unfortunately, he missed a letter from the email address. Consequently, the Council did not receive his email. As Mr X stored the email address in his mobile phone, all his following emails were sent to the same incorrect address.
When Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to respond to his requests for help, it rejected the complaint as it had not received any requests as Mr X had not sent it to the correct email address.
Mr X complains the email address is too long and because of this he missed a letter and none of his requests were received.
The Council has acknowledged Mr X’s views. It advised him it is in the process of making changes to its website and it will discuss the possibility of making changes to the email address with the relevant departments. It also confirms it has discussed the limitations of using video doorbell footage in noise complaints with the ASB team. I consider this to be a suitable remedy to Mr X’s concerns.
I will not investigate this complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response by agreeing to look at the email address as part of a wider review of its website. It has also spoken to the ASB team to make them aware of the limitations of video doorbell footage. I appreciate Mr X believes he should receive compensation as this will have a more significant impact on the Council. However, while the email address is longer than some, it is not of extraordinary length and the incorrect spelling is not the fault of the Council. And, as I have said, the Council has agreed to review its email address and spoken to relevant staff. There is nothing to suggest we need to start an investigation or ask the Council for compensation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has provided a satisfactory response to his concerns. We do not consider that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman