Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed taking action regarding reports of alleged anti-social behaviour by his neighbour. He says this caused avoidable stress to him and his wife. We found fault by the Council in this matter. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed taking action to address reports of alleged anti-social behaviour by his neighbour. He says this caused avoidable stress to him and his wife.
2. Mr X also complains the Council took no action regarding an alleged planning breach by his neighbour. He says he has been complaining to the Council about these issues since 2005.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the complaints referred to in paragraph one. The final section of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating Mr X’s complaints dating back to 2005 and my reasons for not investigating the complaint referred to in paragraph two.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
9. I have made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
10. Mr X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

11. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
12. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution, or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

13. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.

Community Trigger

14. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) also introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
15. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.

Council Procedure

16. The Council’s ASB policy refers to the Act’s definition of ASB as:

• Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
• Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
• Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

17. The policy says the Council has adopted the National Harm Model which defines ASB Harms as:

• Personal Harm
• Public Nuisance
• Environmental Harm

18. The Council’s policy refers to the Community Trigger and says, “local agencies are compelled to take action if several people in the same neighbourhood have complained and no action has been taken; or the behaviour in question has been reported to the authorities by an individual three times, and no action has been taken”. The policy specifies this is applicable when the ASB was reported within one month of the alleged behaviour taking place, and the application to use the trigger is made within six months of the report of ASB.

What happened

19. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
20. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2020 about his next-door neighbour parking multiple vehicles on the road and on their driveway. Mr X said his neighbour worked on the cars until late at night, causing noise nuisance from grinding, welding, and revving the cars’ engines. He said the sparks created when his neighbour worked on the cars flew into his garden and he was concerned this was a fire hazard. Mr X also complained his neighbour’s back garden was full of rubbish which he said attracted rats and foxes, and that his neighbour did not have planning permission for a building in the back garden.
21. The Council replied shortly after and told Mr X it planned to investigate the complaint through consultation with his neighbour. It also said it had sent correspondence to other residents in the area and once it had gathered evidence, it would decide which Council department was in the best position to respond to Mr X’s complaints.
22. On the same day, the Council’s Environmental Protection team provided Mr X with a noise diary. It asked Mr X to complete the diary for two weeks and to return it to the Council. The Council said it would review the diary and determine what action, if any, it would take.
23. Mr X says he returned the completed noise diary in August 2020.
24. In August 2020, a Planning Officer visited Mr X’s property to view the building in his neighbour’s garden. Mr X says the Planning Officer told him the building was more than four years old and the Council would take no further action.

Mr X’s complaint

25. On 4 October 2020, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council had not acted on his complaints about his neighbour.
26. The Council replied on 16 October 2020. It said it had sent letters to other residents to see if the issues affected others but had concluded from the response that the issues only affected one household. The Council said there was nothing more its ASB team could do.
27. The Council said its Environmental Protection team could provide Mr X with a noise recorder and that it would send a letter to Mr X’s neighbour about the alleged noise nuisance. The Council also said it would not take action regarding the waste in his neighbour’s back garden unless there were rats or mice, and the waste was decayable.
28. Mr X replied on 24 October 2020 and said its response was unacceptable. The Council emailed Mr X a few days later and told him it would consider his complaint at Stage two of its complaints process.
29. The Council contacted Mr X in November 2020 and said it had planned to install noise monitoring equipment within the next week. However, it said it had to postpone this action due to Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time.
30. Mr X replied and said the noise monitoring equipment would have been more useful in July when he made his complaint. He said this was because his neighbour was no longer working on the vehicles due to the bad weather.
31. The Council issued its Stage two response on 24 November 2020 and referred to its previous response that Environmental Protection would only investigate if it thought there was a public health risk. The Council acknowledged Mr X said the items in his neighbour’s garden attracted rats and foxes and said this required further investigation. It also acknowledged that it had not dealt with the noise diary provided by Mr X in August 2020. The Council apologised for this and said it would visit Mr X to discuss the ASB issues with him.

What happened next

32. An Environmental Protection officer visited Mr X on 1 December 2020. They viewed the neighbour’s back garden from Mr X’s property and agreed to seek advice about the potential presence of vermin. Mr X also told the officer other residents had raised concerns about his neighbour’s actions.
33. On 4 December 2020, the Council told Mr X it had requested advice from the ASB team and from a pest control expert. It said it was considering issuing an enforcement notice to his neighbour to clear the items in the back garden.
34. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2021 to check progress. The Council replied on 1 February 2021 and told Mr X it had sought alternative means to deal with the items in the neighbour’s back garden. It said however, it was considering issuing an enforcement notice very soon. A few days later, the Council issued the notice and provided Mr X with an update.
35. Mr X says the Council took no further action after it issued the enforcement notice. He remained dissatisfied with the Council’s actions and brought his complaint to us.

Analysis

36. I have exercised discretion in investigating Mr X’s complaint back to July 2020. This is because Mr X complained to the Council in July 2020 and brought the matter to us within 12 months of his complaint.
37. I have reviewed the information provided by Mr X together with evidence of the Council’s actions following Mr X’s complaint of ASB in July 2020. Mr X considers the Council delayed taking action following this complaint, and then took no further action after it issued the enforcement notice in February 2021.
38. I consider there is evidence of delay in considering Mr X’s ASB complaint from the end of July 2020 to October 2020. I acknowledge that in July 2020, shortly after receiving Mr X’s complaint of ASB, the Council sent surveys to other residents and asked Mr X to complete a noise diary. I consider this was positive action and there was no delay from the time Mr X made his complaint to the time the Council took these steps. However, at the end of July 2020, the ASB team decided it would take no further action. I have seen no evidence this was communicated to Mr X at that time. In addition, the Council did not review the completed noise diary provided in August 2020.
39. I acknowledge the Council has apologised to Mr X for “missing” the completed noise diary. I also acknowledge a Planning Officer visited Mr X in August 2020 regarding the alleged planning breach. However, I have seen no evidence the Council took any further action regarding the ASB complaint from the end of July 2020 to October 2020. This is delay by the Council and I have found this delay to be fault.
40. I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council progressed its investigation without further delay from October 2020 onwards. It visited Mr X in December 2020 and following this, considered the most appropriate way to deal with the complaint of waste in the garden. This resulted in the Council issuing the enforcement notice in February 2021.
41. Mr X says the waste in his neighbour’s back garden and the cars at the front of the property are still there. He complains the Council has taken no further enforcement action since February 2021. Mr X says he has not contacted the Council again about this matter because he referred his complaint to us, and he was waiting for the outcome of our investigation.
42. The Council says it monitored the case following the issue of the enforcement notice in February 2021 and I have seen evidence to support this. It said it is satisfied further enforcement action was not required regarding the items in the back garden. It also said, as far as it is aware, the issues regarding the noise complaints have not recurred.
43. I acknowledge Mr X considers the Council took no further action after February 2021. However, having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied the Council reviewed the case after February 2021 and considered all relevant considerations regarding the issuing of the Notice. It did not consider any irrelevant considerations and its conclusions were rational. Therefore, I cannot consider the merits of the decision it made regarding this matter.
44. Mr X told the Council he considered its response to his complaints of ASB was unacceptable and said several of his neighbours had also raised similar concerns. As a result, the Council should have told Mr X about the Community Trigger.
45. I cannot say that Mr X’s case would have met the threshold for review; the relevant bodies involved with the Community Trigger process decide this. I acknowledge the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint about the items in his neighbour’s back garden. And I acknowledge the Council offered to install noise monitoring equipment. However, as Mr X had made several ASB complaints and had told the Council of his dissatisfaction with the outcome, the Council should have told him about the Community Trigger. This would have informed Mr X of his ability to request a review of the Council’s handling of his ASB complaints.
46. I acknowledge the Council’s website and ASB policy refers to the Community Trigger, but I have seen no correspondence to Mr X which explains how or when he could use this process. I have found the Council’s failure to tell Mr X about the Community Trigger to be fault.
47. Mr X says the above issues caused him stress and worry as he felt the Council had not fully considered his complaints of ASB. It is positive the Council has already provided an apology to Mr X about its failure to review the completed noise diary. However, I do not consider this adequately addresses the injustice resulting from the fault identified.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. To address the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Provide an apology to Mr X;
• Make a payment of £150 to Mr X to recognise the stress and worry caused, and
• Provide Mr X with information about the Community Trigger for future reference.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve Mr X’s complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the alleged planning breach or the alleged anti-social behaviour dating back to 2005. This is because Mr X initially complained to the Council in 2005 and we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I consider Mr X could have brought his complaint to us sooner and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate back to 2005.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman