An Act of Parliament was enacted on the 21st March 1997 to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct, as follows:-

England and Wales Prohibition of harassment.

1. - (1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct-

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another is a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment on another.

Therefore if it can be demonstrated to a Jury of reasonable persons that the actions of a Council officer, or of the Council as a whole was not reasonable in the circumstances it should be possible to obtain a conviction.
The main obstacle to justice appears to us to be that the Police are funded by Councils. Consequently, there is a potential conflict of interests, where budgets and priorities might persuade those in control of a station to concentrate resources on lesser more economically detected crimes.
This may go some way to explaining why with so many reported criminal allegations, the Sussex Police has not interviewed officers or otherwise carried out any proper investigation.

According to the Human Rights Act 1998 :-

Article 13 : Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
It seems from a combination of these two Acts that if a Council officer continues to push a member of the public seeking to unbalance that person, in the knowledge that what he is doing is either unreasonable or contrary to his (e.g.) standing orders, Local Plan, or other Guidance, etc, that in these circumstances that officer ought to have known what he was doing amounted to harassment.
We know that when this Council's enforcement officers take sides on an issue, that the legal team alert all other departments and sometimes solicits the attentions of other government departments to bring additional pressure on his target. Favorites are the rating authority, the Police and the RSPCA.
The intention is to flood his target with as many additional things to attend to, in the full knowledge that many persons will be unable to cope, to deliberately raise the stress levels of his target hoping the target will snap. All to often these tactics work. Sometimes a victim not only begins acting irrationally, but in this weakened condition the Council may successfully pursue their target to bankruptcy or a breakdown.
With reference to the Harassment Act, it appears to us that this kind of behaviour is illegal and should be properly investigated by authorities.