can I sue..

[tiny-tidawee]

After enduring months of harassment from my local council about an alleged problem on my land for which the case has been closed due to no evidence, - the council are not satisfied that the alleged nuisance exists,- but now although the investigation is closed and I had the letter confirming this and a phone call which I recorded, "for training purposes"....they are still sending their officer around to have a look around trying to find some evidence or maybe hoping to fine me for not clearing up fallen leaves or straightening my wheelie bins or something like that.......I think at best, they are now trespassing -can I sue for this, and obvious harassment?

[McMouse]

Without knowing the circumstances of the "alleged" problem it's difficult to know whether you are being harassed. In my experience there are usually two sides to every issue.

[tiny-tidawee]

yes helen, but they have, and they closed the case, no evidence, and told me so (letter and phonecall,) so what was all that about if they are still skulking about and snooping, either its closed or it isnt, I 'd have thought....or why send me notification of such..?

[squarebear]

Evidence of what? We need to know the full story here.

[R1Geezer]

If you are being harrassed after an alleged problem has been shown to not exist then you have a case for harrassment, contact a lawler and launch a suit. However as above it would help if we were party to the original complaint and how it was determined to be non existant.

[themas]

Your approach should be to contact the Council & ask why they are doing this. If it doesn't then stop & you are not satisfied with their answer you make a formal complaint to the Council. If that is not settled to your satisfaction you can complain to the Local Government Ombudsman about the Council's maladministration.

Alternatively, talk to your local Councillor & see if he/she can sort it out with the Council Dept. concerned.

[bushbaby_de]

The flip side of this, as a Council officer, is that we can repeatedly receive complaints and have to close cases for lack of evidence, but eventually we do find the evidence and take action. If a complaint is received that could reasonably be true, the Council must investigate, Equally they need to use their discretion to assess whether a repeat complainant is acting vexatiously. Without any more details on your situation it is very difficult to comment further.

[tiny-tidawee]

the complainant is indeed a vexatious litigant! (councils words) and unfortunately also a retired pensioner /village councillor,, the alleged problem arises from our guard dog, I have been told that her noise is NOT EXCESSIVE, no more than natural canine behaviour, (she's a german shepherd,) which is why the case was closed., I got the letter and the phonecall to tell me, not once but twice. There has been recording equipment at complainants home. The complainant has even had their house door wide open all day long in sub zero temperatures desperate to get some kind of result on the recording....Never at any time has any excessive noise been recorded and it really won't happen. I have been told by council that their findings are that she doesn't bark excessively, she doesn't bark for over 20 minutes non stop, and she doesnt bark between 11pm and 7am. Complainant has said to me that they want result of dog getting taken and destroyed. Complainant has said they intend to win and allege have done this action many times before in other locations. Each house except 4 in the very near vicinity all have at least one dog, there are 2 poodles, 2 jack russells, 2 border terriers, a sheltie,a labrador, a heinz 57 and an italian spinola (?) and 2 shitzhus very close by also. Complainant has lied and claimed dog barks non stop at night she doesnt as she sleeps in the house on our bed every night, I have proved it, and even offered cctv footage with audio, date and time stamp, proving no nuisance, which oddly hasn't yet been requested...Nobody else has complained of noise. This complainant is undoubtedly getting prerferential treatment., why.?

[themas]

Perhaps bushbaby can suggest what the Council should if they are satisfied this is a vexatious litigant.

Based on what you say, my own view is that they should tell him this has been exhaustively investigated, there is no merit in his claims and they will take no further action. If they don't, you should pursue the complaint route I mentioned in my earlier post.

[bushbaby_de]

themas - that's exactly what they should do. They do have to be satisfied that it is vexatious though - if the circumstances of each case are different it can warrant a new investigation though. If you are having no luck with the manager of the department you have been engaging with I would suggest you make a formal Stage 1 complaint to the Council outlining your grievances. You need to go through the formal three stage complaint system before you go to the Ombudsman, but that would be the next stage if the Council don't give you satisfactory answers and assurances at complaint stage.

[tiny-tidawee]

Thank you, themas and bushbabyde.... I sent a letter outlining quite a lot to the litigation dept of the council who have answered, no answers to my questions though... just said "I see you have sent a letter with a complaint and it has been passed to community services directorate"...I expect the next stage will be ombudsman, then ICO (because ombudsman is a former colleague of said council department).....seems to be a lot of obstacles blocking my way at the moment....

[themas]

I think you are confusing something here - you're certainly confusing me!

As bushbaby says, there is a formal complaint procedure within the Council. You have to go through the various stages of that & then - if not satisfied - to the Local Government Ombudsman, which is a national independent body & entirely separate from the Council.

I do not think that, at that stage, you would need to have any concern about the ombudsman having a past relationship with the council dept. In fact, there will be a lot of staff working in the Ombudsman organisation & if any of them did have such a relationship they should be duty bound not to have any involvement in the case.

I don't know what the ICO that you mention refers to.