Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to act when he reported antisocial behaviour from one of his neighbours. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the case, other than its failure to explain why it did not pursue the community trigger process. An apology is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr D, complained the Council failed to act when he reported antisocial behaviour from one of his neighbours.
2. Mr D says the situation has caused him significant stress and weight loss and has led to him and his partner temporarily moving out of their property for some respite.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr D disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended and 34(3))
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr D's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

9. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 de-fines anti-social behaviour as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause:
1. harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises; or
3. conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
10. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour. Councils will have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about anti-social behaviour, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary.
11. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced the right for victims of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to ask for an ASB case review. This is a formal review by relevant local bodies into the actions taken to deal with reports of anti-social behaviour. These reviews are also known as the 'Community Trigger'.
12. The relevant bodies in each area must set threshold criteria for starting a review. If someone asks for an ASB case review the relevant bodies must decide whether the application meets the threshold and, if so, undertake a case review. If someone disagrees with a decision not to hold a case review, they can ask the relevant bodies to review the decision.
13. The Council’s community trigger process says where a reporting person or victim has made three reports within the previous six months where reports are made within one month of them occurring, they can request a review under the community trigger.

What happened

14. Mr D says he has reported antisocial behaviour from his neighbour to the Council over many years. I have restricted my investigation to the period from October 2019 onwards. That is 12 months before Mr D complained to the Ombudsman. I am not exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate the earlier period as I see no reason why Mr D could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time.
15. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr D reported antisocial behaviour by his neighbour to the Council at the beginning of October 2019. At that point Mr D asked to remain anonymous. The Council contacted the police. The police told the Council it was not taking further action as Mr D did not want to prosecute. The Council contacted Mr D’s neighbour and reminded her of her responsibilities as a Council tenant.
16. There is no evidence of further contact from Mr D until July 2020. Although Mr D says he contacted the Council many times by telephone there are no records of any of those conversations.
17. In July 2020 Mr D provided the Council with a video showing the issues he was experiencing. A Council officer spoke to Mr D and provided him with diary sheets to complete. Mr D reported further antisocial behaviour in August 2020 as well as a hate crime. Mr D told the Council he had moved out of his property temporarily. The Council contacted the police, which said it had no recent reports.
18. Mr D reported shouting and screaming from his neighbour when he returned to the property in September 2020. Mr D told the Council he intended to move out again temporarily.
19. Mr D moved back into his property in October 2020 and again reported shouting and screaming from his neighbour as well as local youths throwing fireworks at his property. The Council agreed to refer the matter to a multiagency meeting.
20. Mr D asked the Council to arrange a community trigger meeting in October 2020. Mr D provided the Council with a video showing the abuse he had experienced when police attended a recent incident. The Council contacted the police who provided details of recent domestic violence incidents at the neighbouring property.
21. The Council spoke to the hate crime coordinator from West Yorkshire Police. Following that the Council contacted Mr D to advise the information the police had provided was insufficient to enable the Council to pursue a prosecution. The Council told Mr D it was willing to put the allegations of a hate crime to the tenant but was concerned that would reveal Mr D as the person who had contacted the Council. The Council suggested Mr D could provide a formal statement for use in court and asked whether he would be prepared to complete a statement. The Council said that would allow it to consider the options available to it.
22. Mr D declined to provide a statement as he was concerned about repercussions. Mr D again asked for a community trigger and multiagency risk assessment conference (MARAC). Mr D said if the community trigger could get all parties working together to formulate a plan that would safeguard him and his family he would be prepared to give a statement but at the moment he did not feel safe to do so.
23. The Council again told Mr D it needed a statement from him for the Council to look at all the options. Mr D declined that option as he felt unable to do so without a plan in place to protect him.
24. The Council completed a referral to victim support for Mr D at the end of October 2020. The Council also sent Mr D’s neighbour a tenancy warning notice.
25. The MARAC meeting took place on 17 November 2020. The police advised the meeting it had reviewed the footage provided by Mr D and considered there was enough evidence to consider a public order offence. The police said it would interview the neighbour.
26. Mr D reported further antisocial behaviour by his neighbour in November 2020. The Council contacted the police. The police said there had been no new significant incidents.
27. Mr D reported a further incident in December 2020 but confirmed it was not directed at him. Mr D said though the ongoing noise issues were triggering his PTSD. The Council considered Mr D’s video evidence of the events and confirmed it could not take tenancy action against his neighbour as she was not the perpetrator.
28. Mr D reported a further incident in January 2021 which did not involve him. The Council made checks with the police which did not identify any further incidents.
29. The Council contacted Mr D in February 2021 for an update. Mr D reported no further incidents and explained things were usually quieter during the winter months.
30. The Council contacted Mr D again in March 2021 for an update. Mr D reported no further incidents but reported feeling unsafe. The Council told Mr D it would likely have to close the case if there were no further incidents. Several days later Mr D reported shouting and screaming in the street which had triggered his PTSD.
31. Further incidents have taken place at the neighbour’s address, involving someone who does not live at the address. It is clear the incidents upset Mr D but were not directed at him and were domestic abuse. Police arrested the perpetrator who has since been sentenced in court.
32. Mr D has continued to report incidents where the perpetrator has attended the address and caused disturbance which has affected his mental health. The Council has told Mr D it cannot take action without a formal statement from him, which he is unwilling to give because he is concerned about the impact that will have.

Analysis

33. We have no power to investigate the Council's actions in its capacity as a landlord to deal with the behaviour of its tenants. Such a complaint is caught by the restriction outlined at paragraph 4 above. We have jurisdiction to deal with complaints about how councils have dealt with anti-social behaviour using their non-landlord powers such as their general anti-social behaviour powers or noise nuisance powers. However, we cannot hold the Council responsible for the actions of Mr D’s neighbour. The issue is therefore whether the Council has properly considered the antisocial behaviour aspects of the case when reaching its decisions.
34. Mr D says he has been reporting antisocial behaviour and hates crimes from one of his neighbours and people that attend her address since at least 2019. Mr D says the Council has failed to take any action. Having considered the documentary evidence, I cannot find any evidence of ongoing reports of antisocial behaviour or hate crime from Mr D’s neighbour until July 2020. Mr D says that is because until July 2020 he telephoned the Council rather than emailing his concerns. However, as there is no documentary evidence detailing those telephone conversations and what they involved I cannot criticise the Council for any lack of action between November 2019 and July 2020.
35. I am satisfied since July 2020 the Council has taken appropriate action when Mr D reported antisocial behaviour and hate crimes from his neighbour. In particular, I note the Council liaised with the police, referred Mr D to victim support, obtained a statement from the police about an incident in October 2020, issued a warning letter to Mr D’s neighbour, provided Mr D with diary sheets to complete, spoke to Mr D’s neighbour about the issues, held a professionals meetings and held a hate crime MARAC where all the agencies discussed the issues. I therefore could not say the Council failed to act.
36. I recognise the action the Council has taken has not resulted in a resolution from Mr D’s point of view. It is clear though the Council’s position is many of the issues Mr D is now reporting relate to domestic abuse incidents at the neighbour’s address. Whilst that has clearly caused Mr D significant distress as it is not directed at him the Council does not consider it can pursue Mr D’s neighbour without a formal statement from Mr D. As I said in paragraph 5, it is not my role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. While I understand Mr D’s reticence to provide a statement to the Council I cannot criticise the Council for deciding it can take no formal action in relation to Mr D’s neighbour given the nature of the issues reported and the lack of a formal statement to enable it to take action. While I appreciate the current situation means Mr D feels unsafe in his property I have found no evidence to suggest fault by the Council has led to this position.
37. In reaching that view I am aware Mr D says the Council should have begun the community trigger process. I refer to that process in paragraph 13. Under the community trigger process the Council will arrange a multiagency meeting to discuss the way an antisocial behaviour case has been handled when three reports are received within a six month period. That was clearly met by October 2020. I am satisfied though the Council chose instead to arrange a hate crime MARAC. That meeting involved the same agencies that would have taken part in the community trigger process and addressed the issues Mr D had raised about incidents occurring at his neighbour’s address. As I do not consider the community trigger process would have been significantly different to the process the Council went through I do not criticise it for failing to hold a community trigger meeting. I do not consider it likely if the Council had done that the outcome would have been any different as it would still have taken the view that it did not have sufficient evidence to take action against Mr D’s neighbour without further evidence from Mr D in the form of the statement, which he is unwilling to provide. I do, however, consider the Council should have explained its reasoning to Mr D. Failure to do that is fault and this has clearly caused Mr D some frustration. I recommended the Council apologise to Mr D for failing to explain why it had not used the community trigger process. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mr D for not explaining why it had not followed the community trigger process, which caused him frustration.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in one part of the complaint which caused Mr D an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman