Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to conduct an anti-social behaviour case review correctly. She also complains the Council communicated poorly and did not properly consider her requests for reasonable adjustments. We have found the Council at fault for not properly documenting the decision-making at the anti-social behaviour case review meeting and for failing to provide Mrs X with a proper right of appeal. We also found the Council at fault for its communication with Mrs X. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice these faults caused. We have not found the Council at fault for how it considered Mrs X’s requests for reasonable adjustments. We have also not found the Council at fault for restricting Mrs X’s ability to provide supporting evidence.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to address her reports of anti-social behaviour. She said the Council did not adhere to statutory guidance when conducting an anti-social behaviour case review and failed to act against the alleged perpetrators, despite having sufficient evidence to do so.
2. Further, Mrs X said the Council failed to effectively communicate with her, by not responding to or acting on her requests for help. She also said the Council failed to implement her requests for reasonable adjustments, acting in a discriminatory manner by doing so.
3. Mrs X said the Council’s actions caused avoidable frustration, anxiety and distress, affecting her overall wellbeing.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
7. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered information she provided.
9. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
10. Both Mrs X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Anti-social behaviour

11. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter;
• as a licensing matter;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
12. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices (CPNs) to prevent ASB 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.

Statutory nuisances

13. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
14. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
    Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
15. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
16. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

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

17. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’. The government published statutory guidance for professionals, to assist authorities and agencies that exercise functions under the 2014 Act to respond to instances of ASB.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.

Council’s anti-social behaviour case review procedure

22. The Council publishes its ASB case review procedure (which it refers to as the community trigger) on its website. This sets out how residents can use the procedure and the Council’s actions.
23. The Council’s procedure states:
• Residents can use the procedure if they consider no action has been taken by the Council, police, or a registered housing provider in response to three separate reports of ASB in a six-month period. The procedure can also be used if five individuals complain separately about similar incidents of ASB in six months.
• The Council will confirm receipt of the request within two working days. It will then have 10 working days to review the situation and speak with other organisations that might be involved. It will then discuss the case at its Repeat and Vulnerable Callers Group, which addresses cases of repeat callers.
• The Council will then confirm to the complainant whether the case has been agreed. The Council will confirm this within one working day of its discussion. It says if the case is not agreed, the complainant has the right to appeal that decision.
24. The Council’s current ASB policy, introduced in June 2023, does not set out the appeal procedure. However, earlier versions of the policy, as well as minutes of historic public meetings, confirm appeals will be heard through the local Community Safety Forum.

Reasonable adjustments and the Equality Act

25. 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 as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
26. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
27. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
28. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

29. The Ombudsman published the Principles of Good Administrative Practice (the Ombudsman’s Guidance) in 2018. The Ombudsman’s Guidance sets out the Ombudsman’s benchmark for the standards expected when investigating local authorities’ actions.
30. The Ombudsman’s Guidance stresses the importance of being open and accountable, explaining the reasons for decision making, and keeping proper, suitable records.

Back to top

What I found

31. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
32. In 2022, Mrs X complained the Council failed to deal with ASB and noise nuisance from her neighbours. The Ombudsman investigated, finding the Council at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s complaints. We also found the Council at fault for failing to respond to Mrs X’s request for an ASB case review, and for failing to explore reasonable adjustments for Mrs X.
33. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, the Ombudsman recommended the Council progress the case review in line with the timescales set out in its local community trigger policy. We also recommended the Council remind its staff to action requests to provide evidence about ASB in a timely way.
34. Two days after the Ombudsman’s final decision in November 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X to provide a letter. The letter was from a senior officer in the Police service, who had acted as the Chair of the ASB case review. The letter set out the case review’s conclusions. Broadly, the case review found there were no grounds to take formal action against Mrs X’s neighbours or their landlord.
35. Mrs X’s partner, Mr X, wrote to the Council to complain about the case review procedure and conclusions. Mr X said:
1. The Council had gone against relevant guidance by not inviting Mr X and Mrs X to attend the case review, while inviting others, including the neighbouring landlord.
2. Mr and Mrs X disagreed with the findings of the case review. They said the Council had ignored Mrs X’s requests for help. They also said the Council had not tried to witness reported noise nuisance and its website did not allow individuals to upload evidence of ASB. Mr and Mrs X said the Council had evidence of ASB, but had discounted it.
3. Mr and Mrs X sought reasonable adjustments, asking the Council to take enforcement action against their neighbours. They said the law allowed for victims to express a view about what remedy would be appropriate.
36. Mrs X said she complained to the Council about her neighbours again in January 2023. Mrs X said the Council told her it would investigate. She also said her GP contacted the Council, seeking support for Mrs X. Mrs X said the Council did not reply.
37. Mrs X said her GP wrote to the Council again in February 2023, asking the Council to act on concerns for Mrs X’s wellbeing. Mrs X said the Council did not reply.
38. Mrs X said she wrote to the Council again in March 2023 about the same matters. Shortly after this, the Council wrote to Mrs X to respond to her dissatisfaction with the ASB case review. The Council said:
1. Mrs X’s neighbours and neighbouring landlord had not been present at the meeting, nor had the Council invited them to attend.
2. Those present included Council officers and the Police. The Council said the meeting was to review the evidence and to check professionals had completed the relevant actions. The Council said it understood Mrs X wished to be present, but said then other parties would also need to be present. The Council said the Chair of the meeting had decided to restrict attendance to professionals, to allow for a full review of the evidence.
3. The decision letter confirmed Mrs X’s concerns were addressed.
4. It did not agree it should have held the case review in a different format.
5. Mrs X was monitoring her neighbours’ actions and behaviour, while making repeat reports to authorities. The Council said these repeat reports could border on vexatious behaviour. It listed the criteria for this, outlining where it believed Mrs X may be meeting the relevant thresholds. It said it would review Mrs X’s communications for a further two months and act if needed.
6. The Council also addressed Mrs X’s request for reasonable adjustments.
39. Mrs X said the Council did not respond when she and her medical professionals sought further assistance. Mrs X said she asked the Council to conduct a new ASB case review in April 2023. Mrs X said the Council told her it would contact her about this. She said she did not hear anything further.
40. Between May and September 2023, Mrs X said different Council services contacted her, following referrals received from other agencies. Mrs X said the Council told her it had tried to contact the neigbouring landlord, but had received no response. Mrs X said she received conflicting advice about her housing options. The Police also visited her again. She told the Ombudsman there were further incidents with her neighbour in late 2023 and early 2024, including physical altercations, which she reported to the Council. Mrs X said the Council had taken no action, despite these reports. The Council told me it had visited Mr and Mrs X in October 2023 to install noise monitoring software on their electronic devices. The Council said this would allow them to send audio and video recordings to the Council. The Council said it had not received any recordings as of the end of January 2024.

Relevant events during this investigation

41. The Council told me there had been a further multi-agency meeting in February 2024, between the Council and Police service. The meeting addressed the complaints of ASB and new allegations made by Mr and Mrs X against their neighbours. This resulted in a review of investigations by the police service and the potential for mediation, if the police review found this would be suitable. The Council’s Private Sector Housing team also committed to reviewing all relevant material to ensure the neighbouring landlord had acted properly and in line with their licence. The Council would also follow up on any referrals made for Mrs X.

Analysis

Attendance and representation

42. The government’s published statutory guidance says relevant bodies should always consider inviting victims to attend a section of the ASB case review meeting. This is to help members of the panel understand the harm and impact on the victim. The guidance says it may be more suitable to invite a representative to attend on the victim’s behalf.
43. While good practice, arranging attendance or representation is not mandatory. There may be valid reasons not to invite a complainant, depending on the individual factors of the case.
44. The Council said the Chair of the meeting – acting on behalf of the Police service – decided to restrict attendance to professionals only. This was to allow full consideration of the evidence. The Police service’s actions and decisions are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. I cannot therefore reach a view on how this decision was taken.
45. I would stress to the Council the guidance refers to inviting victims to “a section" of the meeting. Even if the victim attends a section of the meeting to discuss the impact, professionals can still review the evidence without the victim present in other sections of the meeting.

Case review procedure and outcome

46. Mrs X disagreed with the conclusions of the ASB case review. In correspondence to the Council on Mrs X’s behalf, Mr X said the Council had clear evidence of the alleged ASB, but had discounted it.
47. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision, and whether it can show it fully considered the evidence and facts of each case. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
48. I asked the Council to provide a copy of the minutes of the ASB case review meeting. The Council told me there were no formal minutes made of the meeting. It said the response letter from the Chair was the record of the discussions held.
49. I have found the Council at fault for not keeping minutes of the meeting. The Ombudsman’s Guidance stresses the importance of keeping proper, suitable records, setting out the reasons for decision-making. This is important given the nature of the ASB case review. The case review panels decide whether to set up an action plan, or take decisions that can result in formal action against individuals. These decisions are appealable. The minutes serve as evidence these decisions were taken properly, by those able to sanction them. The minutes also provide a means to allow scrutiny of the decision-making. Without a clear, contemporaneous record, the Council cannot show how those present weighed the available evidence.
50. The Council told me the decision letter it sent to Mrs X recorded the outcome of the case review. I have not reproduced the letter here, as both parties have a copy. I note the letter does address what I understand to be the key points, while referring to specific pieces of evidence. It also refers broadly to the diary sheets and videos Mrs X shared with the Council. It is clear the case review had some consideration for relevant evidence.
51. However, Mrs X believes the Council discounted key pieces of evidence. The lack of minutes means there is no formal record against which to assess Mrs X’s concerns. It is possible the conclusion of the case review would have been the same. However, the uncertainty caused is an injustice to Mrs X in itself.
52. This fault could also cause an injustice to others. Not keeping minutes of case review meetings would mean the Council is failing to routinely record how it decides what action to take in similar cases. Using decision letters as the sole record is unreliable: these letters are likely to vary in substance and format. The Council should ensure it is keeping proper records of important decisions. This will reduce uncertainty for others.
53. Paragraphs 22-24 set out the Council’s published ASB case review procedure. It says where cases are not agreed, the complainant will have a right to appeal. The case review decision letter the Council sent to Mrs X in November 2022 did not highlight this right of appeal. I have found the Council at fault for this.
54. The Council told me it accepted it had not made sure Mrs X was aware of the right to appeal. However, it said it addressed Mrs X’s concerns in the letter it sent in March 2023. It therefore believed it had, in effect, carried out a review.
55. I note the Council’s explanation. However, I do not agree this further letter served as a suitable appeal. As set out in paragraph 24, appeals should be heard through the local Community Safety Forum. This is not what happened in this case, with a senior officer responding to Mrs X’s concerns.
56. The Council’s fault therefore caused Mrs X an injustice. Mrs X was unaware of her appeal right and how her appeal should have been considered. There is uncertainty about what would have happened, and whether the decision would have changed, had an appeal been properly considered.
57. Mrs X sought a new ASB case review in April 2023. The Council told the Ombudsman it had no record of Mrs X seeking a further review. Mrs X provided the Ombudsman with evidence the Council acknowledged her request on 26 April 2023.
58. I have found the Council at fault for not responding to Mrs X’s request for a new case review. I cannot say the Council would have agreed to hold a further review. Nonetheless, not responding to Mrs X caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress.

Reasonable adjustments

59. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments in its handling of their case. They asked the Council to:
• serve their neighbours with a CPN;
• serve their neighbours’ landlord with a CPN;
• enforce removal of a vehicle from the neighbouring property; and
• make services attend all future reports of ASB, offering support for Mr and Mrs X.
60. The Council said these requests were not for reasonable adjustments, but for the Council to take enforcement action. The Council said it had to take enforcement action according to relevant statutory frameworks. It said seeking a prosecution against other individuals was not a reasonable adjustment.
61. I am satisfied the Council suitably considered and responded to Mrs X’s requests. I have not therefore found the Council at fault.

Investigation and Communication

62. Mrs X said she could not share evidence with the Council. She said the Council had no simple way for victims to provide evidence, such as noise diaries or recordings, when reporting ASB.
63. The Council told me individuals could email supporting evidence, something Mrs X had done in the past. It also said it provided Mr and Mrs X access to its noise app in October 2023. It said individuals could submit audio and video recordings directly to the Council using this app. The Council said it had received no recordings since it provided access to the app.
64. Mrs X’s chronology of events suggests she has been able to provide reports to the Council. The case review decision letter also mentions diaries and video recordings. I have not therefore found the Council acted with fault by restricting Mrs X’s ability to provide supporting evidence.
65. Mrs X said the Council failed to communicate effectively about her concerns. She said her medical practitioners had raised concerns on her behalf frequently since December 2022. She said she and Mr X had also written to the Council on several occasions, but received no reply. Mrs X provided a record of these contacts to the Ombudsman.
66. The Council provided me with a summary of the contacts it documented between Mrs X and its services:
1. The Council’s noise and nuisance service received three reports of noise nuisance, in April, May and November 2023. The Council attended one of these calls directly and followed up by telephone on the others. None of these reports resulted in a statutory nuisance being witnessed.
2. The Council’s private sector housing team engaged with the neighbouring landlord and managing agent. The Council said there were no grounds on which to take enforcement action.
3. The Council’s social care team received copies of multiple police reports. It also received a safeguarding alert in May 2023, resulting in a referral to services, with Mrs X’s consent. The Council referred the matter again in June 2023, after services did not contact Mrs X.
67. I have not seen full copies of the original correspondence Mrs X said the Council received. However, comparison between Mrs X’s records and the Council’s response to my enquiries shows common entries. On a balance of probabilities, I believe the Council did not consistently respond to or acknowledge Mrs X’s correspondence, or correspondence sent on her behalf. I have found the Council at fault for this.
68. This fault caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council not consistently addressing Mrs X’s correspondence caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress. This is particularly the case given that some letters were sent by medical professionals expressing concern for Mrs X’s welfare.

Back to top

Agreed action

69. As set out in paragraph 41, new events in this case led to a multi-agency meeting between the Council and Police service. This resulted in a review of the case by both the police and the Council, with a series of actions proposed.
70. The Council’s recent engagement is a positive step. While a clear example of inter-agency working, the recent meeting between the Police and the Council was not held under the ASB case review framework. It did not therefore fulfil the same function, or provide Mrs X with the same rights, as an ASB case review. The Council has told me the Police review is ongoing and the Council must await the outcome. I have taken this into account when making the following recommendations.
71. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, I propose the Council should:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Remind relevant officers that decision letters issued in respect of ASB case reviews must notify individuals of their right to appeal.
3. Remind relevant officers of the importance of keeping proper, suitable records relating to ASB case reviews. The Council should direct officers to review the Ombudsman’s “Guidance on Good Administrative Practice” when doing so.
4. Pay Mrs X £400 in recognition of the avoidable frustration and distress she experienced. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation. This says we may recommend a remedy of up to £500 where we find faults leading to avoidable distress. The recommended remedy is therefore at the higher end of this range.
72. Once the Police service has concluded its review of investigations to date, and depending on the outcome, the Council has agreed to:
1. Write to Mrs X to offer to conduct a new ASB case review. If Mrs X seeks a new case review, the Council should ensure:
1. Mrs X is able to provide any information or evidence she wants the review to consider.
2. Any request for Mrs X to attend, or be represented at, the meeting is properly considered, with a decision clearly communicated to Mrs X.
3. The meeting is minuted and decision-making fully documented.
4. Mrs X is afforded the right of appeal when the decision letter is issued.
2. The Council should update Mrs X on the progress of this recommendation as soon as possible and within eight weeks of the final decision being issued.
73. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

74. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman