Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to adequately respond to reports of anti-social behaviour she made in relation to her neighbour. Mrs X also complained the Council wrongly issued her with two community protection notice warnings. I ended this investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and it is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to adequately respond to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) she made in relation to her neighbour. Mrs X also complained the Council wrongly issued her with two community protection notice warnings.
2. She says as a result of the Council’s inaction she continues to experience ASB. This has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty. Mrs X would like assistance to resolve the ASB.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mrs X’s complaint and information she provided.
5. I considered information the Council provided.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour

7. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:

• the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a set length of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.

Community protection notices

8. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community's quality of life. A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
9. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a CPN. The council should decide how long after the written warning to wait before serving a CPN. A person can appeal a CPN in the magistrates' court within 21 days of receiving it if they disagree with the council’s decision.
10. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

11. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
12. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should 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.
13. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
14. Asking for an ASB case review is not the same as making a formal complaint against a council for how it has handled reports of ASB.
15. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. We cannot investigate or make findings about any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police.

What happened

16. The information below is not a comprehensive overview of everything that happened. It is a summary of key information.
17. In October 2021, Mrs X had new neighbours move in next door. Mrs X says the neighbours started committing acts of ASB in November 2021. She says this included verbal abuse, physical abuse and destruction of property.
18. Mrs X reported the ASB to the Council and it allocated a senior officer (Z) to oversee the case and be Mrs X’s point of contact. In August 2022 Z issued both Mrs X and her neighbours with a community protection notice warning. This told both parties not to communicate with each other in a manner which could cause harassment, alarm or distress.
19. In February 2023, Mrs X requested an ASB case review (also known as a community trigger) as she felt the relevant agencies had not taken enough action to address the ASB. In April 2023, Z rescinded Mrs X’s community protection notice warning.
20. In May 2023, Mrs X made a further complaint. She said the Council failed to adequately respond and act on her reports and evidence of her neighbour committing ASB and breaching their warning. She also said Z should not have issued her with a warning.
21. In July 2023, the community trigger panel reviewed Mrs X’s case and concluded it was satisfied that services have been working in partnership to provide appropriate steps to help safeguard and address the ASB that she had described. The panel provided a comprehensive action plan which set out how the services were tackling the ASB.
22. The same month Z issued Mrs X with another warning for acting in an intimidating way and being verbally abusive towards the neighbours. The Council had video footage and said this was sufficient evidence. However, Mrs X disagrees with this.
23. In December 2023, Mrs X appealed against the decision of the community trigger panel. The case was reviewed by a separate panel with representatives from the Council, police and fire service. In February 2024, the review panel partially upheld the appeal as it said there have been occasions where the service provided had fallen short of what it would expect. It also highlighted areas of good practice. It upheld six of Mrs X’s 16 points, three of which related to Council actions. Mrs X raised concerns regarding Z’s conduct including Z being unprofessional in their correspondence with Mrs X. However, these were not upheld. The three upheld points were as follows:
1. The Council committed a data breach during the community trigger;
2. The Council issued the community trigger outcome a day late; and
3. The Council issued Mrs X’s neighbour with a community protection notice (CPN) when it was not right to do so.
24. In April 2024, the Council responded to the complaint Mrs X made. It said it had reviewed Z’s investigation into Mrs X’s reports of ASB and her subsequent appeals. However, it found no evidence that Z had not followed procedures or made mistakes with the case. The Council said it was satisfied that it had acted appropriately and in accordance with the powers available to it.
25. In May 2024, Mrs X escalated her complaint to the Chief Executive of the Council. The Council provided a final response in August 2024 reiterating what it had said within the previous complaint response and appeal outcomes.
26. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

My findings

27. The community trigger and ASB review panels have independently reviewed how the agencies have responded to Mrs X’s complaints of ASB. The panels were satisfied services have been working in partnership to provide appropriate steps to help safeguard and address the ASB that she had described. The action plan also shows how the ASB is being addressed. Mrs X feels the Council has not adequately acted on her reports of ASB and this has caused her distress. However, multiple professionals have reviewed the ASB reports and evidence she has submitted and concluded it does not meet the evidential threshold. It is unlikely further investigation by us would reach a different outcome.
28. The community trigger and ASB review panels also considered Z’s conduct including the issuing of community protection notice warnings. The Council has also addressed this in its complaint responses. The Council says there was no evidence Z was unprofessional or did not follow procedures. The first warning Mrs X received was rescinded in April 2023. Mrs X disagrees with the warnings and has requested the second warning also be rescinded. However, Z has explained there is video evidence to support this which meets the evidential threshold. Z has explained to Mrs X if she provides evidence to disprove this, the decision will be reviewed.
29. I decided to end my investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the panels dealt with Mrs X’s complaints of ASB to warrant any further investigation. It is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome or I could achieve anything more by further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I ended this investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely further investigation by us would lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman