Summary: The complainant (Mr X) said the Council failed to deal effectively with his reports of the anti-social behaviour (ASB) taking place in the alleyway next to his house. We found fault with the Council for not providing Mr X information on the Community Trigger process and for not making this information available in the Council’s leaflets about ASB. This fault caused Mr X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, provide Mr X with the information on its Community Trigger process and amend its leaflets.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to deal with the anti-social behaviour in the alleyway next to his house he had complained about. Mr X says his property has been damaged and he is constantly anxious about the anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I reviewed the Council’s leaflets ‘Anti-social Behaviour: Help and advice for residents in Birmingham’ and ‘What you can do to stop antisocial behaviour’. I also reviewed the information on Community Trigger on the Council’s website.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s guide ‘Principles of good administrative practice’ issued in December 2018.
9. Mr X 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

Legal and administrative framework

10. Councils have general duty to take action to combat anti-social behaviour. Councils will have a team to respond to and investigate complaint about ASB, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary. (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Section 17)
11. The Community Trigger process allows for a review of the case where a locally determined threshold is met. It is a means of giving victims and communities a say in how antisocial behaviour is addressed. It is intended as a safety net for those who believe they have not had a satisfactory response to their complaint about ASB.
12. Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 specifies relevant bodies’ responsibilities around the Community Trigger process. They must:
1. carry out a review of the response to the complaint about anti-social behaviour (“ASB case review”) if:
• There is an application for such a review; and
• The threshold for a review is met.
1. Make arrangements about carrying out the ASB case revies and ensure they are published;
2. Ensure the review procedures include provision about making of applications for ASB case reviews and in particular:
• Specify the point of contact for making applications, and
• Ensure that applications made to that point of contact are passed on to all the relevant bodies in the local government area.

(Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 Sections 104 and 105)

What happened

13. Mr X first raised the issue of the anti-social behaviour in the alleyway next to his house in March 2022 when some young people set fire to a mattress. The alleyway is situated between fenced off private properties and leads to the park (the Park).
14. In response to Mr X’s communication the Council advised him to contact the Police when incidents occur. It explained closing the entrance to the alleyway, suggested by Mr X, would not discourage undesirable behaviour as other entrances could be used to access the alleyway.
15. Mr X was unhappy the Council and the Police, rather than helping him with ASB, kept referring him between themselves.
16. In April the Council discarded a possibility of putting a gate at the entrance to the alleyway as it had no resources to ensure it would get opened and closed every day. In the Council’s view the benefits of this solution would be limited anyway.
17. Following the incident in March the Council received further reports of incidents in the alleyway and damage to the property:
• From Mr X – beginning of April, second week of April, second week of June, fourth week of August, the end of August (two alerts of disruptive behaviour), beginning of September, third week of November, third week of December, beginning of January 2023, second week of January 2023;
• From other residents – first week of October and third week of October.
18. On several occasions the Police told the Council of the reports it received about the alleyway leading to the Park. This happened in mid-July, beginning of August, second week of August and fourth week of October.
19. In its response to the reports of damage to Mr X’s fence by covering it with graffiti, the Council repeatedly said removing graffiti was the fence owner’s responsibility. The fence was privately owned so the Council would not get involved in carrying out any repairs.
20. Asked by Mr X, at the end of November the Council reviewed his complaint and provided its final response, in which it stated:
• Fencing was private owned so not the Council’s responsibility;
• There was no possibility of planting shrubs along the fence as this would attract further rubbish and narrow the walkway;
• The Council would change the fencing at the entrance to the alleyway to try to reduce the issue.
21. The Council told us it had started altering the entrances next to Mr X’s house, with new barriers restricting access to the alleyway.

Analysis

22. From March 2022 on many occasions Mr X contacted the Council and the Police to report unacceptable, in his view, behaviour in the alleyway next to his property. He claimed this behaviour was disruptive to him and his family and resulted in the damage to his property.
23. The Council responded to Mr X’s reports referring him to the Police or clarifying its responsibility. It also undertook certain actions trying to reduce disruptions experienced by Mr X and his neighbours.
24. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response to his reports and he complained. It is not our role to decide whether the Council should have acted differently in response to Mr X’s reports and complaints. As explained under paragraph three of this decision we look at the process, rather than the merits of the Council’s decisions.
25. I found the Council, when looking into Mr X’s case, failed to advise or signpost him to the information about the Community Trigger process. In its response to our enquiries the Council confirmed it did not happen.
26. The Community Trigger process was introduced to provide a mechanism to challenge councils’ responses to the ASB reporting. Councils must provide relevant information in individual cases and on its website, otherwise residents may not be aware of their right to ask for a review.
27. The Council’s failure to advise Mr X on the Community Trigger process is fault. This caused Mr X injustice as he could not exercise his right to ask for a review. He spent much time contacting the Council and seeking support from his Member of Parliament and a local councillor, which might have not been necessary if he had known of the possibility to ask for a ASB case review.
28. As explained in our guide mentioned under paragraph eight of this decision, being open and accountable is one of the principles of good administrative practice. The information and advice provided by councils to the residents should be clear, accurate and complete.
29. Although the Council has information on its website about the Community Trigger process, there is no reference to this process in either of the Council’s leaflets about anti-social behaviour named in paragraph seven of this decision. Therefore unless somebody already knows the process exists and how it is called, they would not find relevant information when reviewing the Council’s information on how to deal with the anti-social behaviour and would not know they have the right to challenge the Council’s response. This is fault, which meant Mr X could not easily find the information about the Community Trigger process published on the Council’s website.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council within four weeks of my final decision complete the following:
• Send a written apology to Mr X;
• Provide Mr X with the information on the Council’s Community Trigger process;
• Pay Mr X £100 to recognise time and trouble spent on contacting the Council for many months with no advice received on the Community Trigger process.
31. We also recommend the Council within three months of the final decision amend the Council’s leaflets ‘Anti-social Behaviour: Help and advice for residents in Birmingham’ and ‘What you can do to stop antisocial behaviour’ by including in them information on the Community Trigger process and contact details for making an application. The Council should provide us with evidence it has happened.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I uphold this complaint. I found fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour, which caused him injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is now at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman