The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his reports of antisocial behaviour. We could not add to the Council’s response and further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council have failed to take appropriate action in response to his complaint about antisocial behaviour from a neighbour. He says the matter is unresolved, causing him distress and the Council’s failure to invite him to the case review meeting meant his voice went unheard. He wants the Council to act to stop the antisocial behaviour and improve its service.
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour, which he says has been ongoing since 2021. He complained the Council had: failed to keep appropriate records of his 2021 complaint; shown poor judgement in its actions and decision making; failed to investigate patterns of antisocial behaviour over several years; and failed to invite him to a recent antisocial behaviour case review, meaning his voice had gone unheard.
In its complaint responses the Council accepted it did not have full records from his 2021 complaint and apologised for this. It explained its reasoning for not agreeing to Mr X’s request to share some of his evidence with his neighbour. It said it had apologised for not inviting him to the case review meeting. It had since held a further case review meeting where Mr X’s views were heard, and an action plan agreed.
It said the action plan included an investigation and the installation of noise monitoring equipment in his house. It said as the antisocial behaviour was intermittent, Mr X had agreed to contact the Council next time it occurred, and officers would visit to install the equipment. However, to date, Mr X had not contacted the Council stating the noise had recurred.
We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response or reach a different outcome. The Council apologised to Mr X for failing to invite him to the case review meeting. It arranged a second meeting which Mr X attended and was able to express his views. This is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused. The Council has explained to Mr X why it decided not to share his evidence with his neighbour. This is a decision it is entitled to make.
Mr X agreed an action plan following the review meeting. The Council cannot take enforcement action until it has sufficient evidence that anti social behaviour is present and occurring or recurring, and so the plan to install monitoring equipment is an appropriate response to Mr X’s concerns. It is for Mr X to contact the Council to request this at an appropriate time. It is unlikely an investigation by us could add to the Council response or reach a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman