Summary: Mrs F complained the Council has failed to deal with, and respond to, her complaints of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance issues from her neighbours. We find fault with how the Council handled Mrs F’s complaints and it failed to respond to her request to activate the community trigger in a timely manner. It also failed to explore what reasonable adjustments she required. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs F complained the Council has failed to deal with, and respond to, her complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance issues from her neighbours. She also says it has failed to respond to her requests for a community trigger review. Finally, she says it has failed to implement any reasonable adjustments and consider her vulnerability.
2. Mrs F says the Council’s failures have severely affected her mental health and she is living in constant fear.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

6. I considered information from Mrs F. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Mrs F 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

Anti-social behaviour

8. Section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (2014 Act) defines anti-social behaviour as conduct:

1. That has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
2. Capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

9. The 2014 Act introduced new powers for councils, the police and other bodies to tackle anti-social behaviour. Councils may apply to the courts for a civil injunction or make a Public Spaces Protection Order.

Community trigger process

10. The 2014 Act also introduced a mechanism for alleged anti-social behaviour victims to request a review of the handling of their case by the ‘relevant bodies’. This is commonly known as the ‘community trigger’.
11. The relevant bodies for the community trigger process are the local council, police, clinical commissioning group, and social housing providers. They should agree a local community trigger policy, which will set a threshold at which complainants can request a review.

The Council’s local community trigger policy

12. The Council’s published information shows it will complete a review will if an individual has complained to it, the police, or a registered housing provider (social landlord) about three separate incidents in the last six months and the individual considers there has been no action taken.
13. After the individual requests to use the community trigger, they will get written confirmation of their request within two working days. The Council will then have 10 working days to look at the situation and talk to any other organisations who may be involved with the case.
14. The Council will send an action plan which will say if the case has been agreed or not. It will send this within one working day of the case being discussed.

Statutory noise nuisance

15. Councils have a legal duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances, including noise. For a noise to amount to a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:

• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use of enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health.

16. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
17. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
18. The Council’s noise service operates six days per week. It offers a late night out of hours service on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Once it has received the complaint, it may call the complainant and ask them to confirm if the noise is still happening. If it is, it will arrange to visit them in their property.

Reasonable adjustments

19. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service at, or as close as possible to, the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
20. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to people accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

What happened

21. This chronology includes an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
22. Mrs F has experienced ASB and noise nuisance issues from her neighbours since 2020. Her neighbours live in a privately rented property. She reported the issues to the Council in September. It visited and said there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance.
23. Mrs F continued to experience ASB and noise nuisance issues. She contacted the Council again in April 2021 and reported noise nuisance issues. The Council did not respond. She also reported the issues to the Council’s private landlord team on 29 April, but it did not respond.
24. Mrs F also reported ASB to the Council in June, but it did not respond.
25. Mrs F complained to the Council on 16 July. She said she had tried to resolve the issues with her neighbours, but they were still ongoing. She said it had failed to respond to her complaints about the matter. She also said she wanted help under the Equality Act 2010 as a reasonable adjustment. The Council said it would try and respond by 30 July.
26. The Council sent two letters to the landlord about the issues. It asked for a response on how he was going to resolve the ASB and noise nuisance issues. The landlord responded and provided some information on how he would deal with the matter.
27. Mrs F emailed the Council again in August. She said it had not responded by the deadline. She also said she has severe mental health issues and its website recommended she keep a diary, but she was not clear where to send it to.
28. The Council responded to Mrs F’s complaint. It said officers had not witnessed a statutory noise nuisance. It encouraged her to continue reporting the noise nuisance to the noise team. It also said it had written to the landlord and asked him to respond within 28 days.
29. Mrs F responded in August and said she remained dissatisfied. She said it had not apologised or explained why it had not responded to her online submissions. She said it had not asked for her ASB diary. She repeated her requests for reasonable adjustments and additional support with her neighbours due to her severe and complex disabilities.
30. Mrs F contacted the Council again and reported further noise nuisance. A Council officer visited and witnessed a statutory nuisance. They told Mrs F’s neighbours to turn the music down.
31. Mrs F emailed her local councillor and MP and copied in the Council’s complaints department on 20 September. She said she was still experiencing issues. She asked the Council to activate the community trigger. The Council failed to respond to this request.
32. Mrs F contacted the Council in December and said a vehicle that was parked on her neighbour’s drive was obstructing her view. The Council investigated this the following month. It noted the vehicle was not overhanging onto the public highway. It sent a letter to Mrs F’s local councillor about this in February.
33. Mrs F continued to raise ongoing issues with her local councillors. She said the Council had failed to respond to her community trigger request. She also repeated her concerns about the vehicle.
34. Mrs F called the Council in March and asked it to activate the community trigger. The officer she spoke said the link on the website did not work. She completed the form and sent it to the ASB team.
35. Mrs F spoke to an officer in the ASB team the following day. She mentioned in the phone call she was suicidal. The officer made a referral to the safeguarding team.
36. Mrs F made further complaints to the Council about how it had failed to support her, implement any reasonable adjustments, and resolve the parking obstructions. She also said it had not installed any noise monitoring equipment.
37. The Council wrote to Mrs F’s neighbours and the landlord about the ongoing issues.
38. A Council officer visited Mrs F to discuss the ASB at the end of April. She asked for Mrs F’s ASB diary and more information about her contact with her neighbours and the landlord. The officer also discussed the matter with the police and completed a risk assessment.
39. The Council responded to Mrs F’s further complaints in May. It said it had not received any evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. It said the noise had often stopped at the time of the call or an officer’s visit. It said it could install noise monitoring equipment in certain circumstances. It said it would pass the matter on to noise officers to see whether noise monitoring equipment could be installed. Finally, it said the vehicle was not causing an obstruction and it would not take any enforcement action.
40. Mrs F continued to report noise nuisance and ASB to the Council. The Council sent a strongly worded letter to Mrs F’s neighbours and the landlord. It warned them about legal action if the issues continued.
41. An officer visited Mrs F and her husband (Mr F) at their house in August to discuss the ASB and noise nuisance. The officer said there was not any evidence of ASB, but the matter could be resolved by mediation. Mrs F said she wanted to show the officer a video of the ASB. The officer refused to see it and the meeting ended abruptly.
42. Mr F raised a complaint about the conduct of the officer after the meeting ended. The Council responded to the complaint and agreed the meeting was not conducted in a professional manner. It apologised to him and Mrs F for this. It invited them to attend a meeting to discuss the matter further. It said they could provide their evidence and it would formulate a plan on how to address the issues.
43. The Council has now met with Mr and Mrs F to discuss their case.

Back to top

Analysis

44. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it accepted its handling of this case should have been better. It says it failed to examine evidence, activate the community trigger at the right time, explain how it planned to manage the enforcement case in 2021 and reach a decision within a reasonable amount of time.
45. I agree with the Council’s comments. It failed to respond to some of Mrs F’s complaints of ASB. It also failed to respond to her email in August when she expressed dissatisfaction with its stage one response, and it did not answer her repeated questions about where she could send her ASB diary. It only asked for this in April 2022. It also did not respond to her request to activate the community trigger in September 2021.
46. The Council said in response to Mrs F’s complaint in May 2022 it would contact noise officers to see whether noise monitoring equipment could be installed. I cannot see the Council followed this up at the time, which is fault. The Council now says it will contact Mrs F to arrange a suitable time to install this equipment. Mrs F say this is no longer necessary as the statutory noise nuisance has stopped. She should contact the Council if she ever wishes for it to re-visit this.
47. The Council reviewed the ASB case in April 2022, but it failed to list it for discussion at the panel set up to deal with repeat complaints from people that are vulnerable. It also did not write to Mrs F within 10 working days to confirm if sufficient evidence existed to develop an action plan.
48. Mrs F says the Council has failed to make any reasonable adjustments. The Council says officers raised a safeguarding alert, and so it met its duties. It says Mrs F could access services, so no adjustments were required in that respect. It adds statutory noise nuisance must be considered in the context of an average person. Statutory noise nuisance cannot be used to make people do more than might reasonably be expected of them because someone else may be more sensitive than the average person. Finally, it says it could have done more to assist her as a vulnerable person if the community trigger process was activated at the right time.
49. The Council has never responded to Mrs F’s requests for reasonable adjustments. This is fault. It should have considered her requests in line with the Equality Act 2010 and decided whether they were reasonable or not. Its failure to do so is fault and provides Mrs F with some uncertainty about whether it would have implemented any reasonable adjustments for her when she asked. The Council says Mrs F could access services, so no adjustments were required. While I note the Council’s comments, it failed to explore with Mrs F exactly what adjustments she needed. It should now do so.
50. I find no fault with how the Council considered Mrs F’s concerns about the vehicle. It visited the site, took its own photographs, and reviewed Mrs F’s photographs. It decided there was insufficient evidence to take enforcement action. Its view is the vehicle is not causing an obstruction. I appreciate Mrs F strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, there is no fault in the way it reached its decision, and so I cannot criticise it.
51. I have listened to a recording of the meeting the Council officer had with Mr and Mrs F in August. I agree the officer’s conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional. I welcome the Council has acknowledged this and apologised to Mr and Mrs F for the upset and distress caused.
52. The Council’s faults have caused Mrs F significant distress, upset and uncertainty that matters may have been resolved sooner. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it offered £500 to reflect Mrs F’s injustice. I welcome this offer from the Council, and it is line with our guidance on remedies. However, I also make further recommendations to address Mrs F’s injustice and to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
53. Mrs F says she wants the Council to revoke the landlord’s license and she also wants it to implement a civil injunction. It is not for the Ombudsman to direct the Council to take these measures. It is for the Council to decide how best to tackle the ongoing issues in line with the powers it has. The Council has met with Mr and Mrs F about the issues. It should progress the case in line with its community trigger policy and decide what action, if any, is now required.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 29 December 2022 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mrs F.
• Pay Mrs F £500.
• Write to Mrs F and explore what reasonable adjustments she needs. It should ensure it has due regard to the Equality Act 2010 when deciding whether to implement any reasonable adjustments.
• Write to Mrs F and explain whether it will take any action in respect of the ongoing ASB. It should progress the case in line with the timescales set out in its local community trigger policy.

55. By 25 January 2023, the Council will issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure:

• Community trigger review requests are dealt with in line with the Council’s published policy.
• They are aware of their duties under the Equality Act 2010 and they must respond when someone asks for reasonable adjustments.
• Complaints are escalated appropriately and in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure.
• Requests to submit evidence to support complaints of ongoing ASB are actioned in a timely way.

Back to top

Final decision

56. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs F an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman