Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had failed to properly consider his request for an anti-social behaviour case review or take effective action to deal with ongoing incidents of nuisance from his neighbour. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Dover District Council (the Council) failed to properly consider his request for an anti-social behaviour case review, failed to allow him to appeal the decision and has given confusing information as to whether the review actually took place. It has also failed to take effective action to deal with the ongoing anti-social behaviour, including a failure to consider its wider powers beyond statutory noise nuisance. This has caused (and continues to cause) Mr B and his partner significant distress and frustration.

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 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)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have only investigated events from September 2023, as we have previously investigated a complaint about events prior to this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

Statutory nuisances

6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’, which can include noise from premises.
7. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

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.
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.

The anti-social behaviour case review

13. 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’.
14. 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.
15. 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.

What happened

16. Mr B’s partner complained to us previously about nuisance, primarily noise from their neighbour. We made a decision in September 2023 on a previous complaint from Mr B’s partner about similar issues.
17. Mr B complained to the Council in October 2023 that it had taken no action against his neighbour despite the nuisance continuing, his neighbour being charged with two offences and the police were continuing to investigate. He was also unhappy with how the Council officer Mr X had dealt with the case.
18. In response the Council said it would reopen the case for another four weeks and liaise with the police about the situation. It sent Mr B diary sheets and asked him to provide the CCTV evidence that Mr X had behaved unreasonably. The Council said Mr B did not provide any evidence.
19. Mr B said despite providing numerous pieces of evidence about his neighbour, the Council had taken no action.
20. On 21 October 2023 Mr B requested an ASB case review. He reported three incidents in the previous 6 months: on 12 and 13 October 2023 and 1 July 2023. He said the one on 12 October 2023 began as a noise disturbance but escalated to criminal damage and personal injury and the police were contacted. The second one was the police attending the following day. They said they would contact the Council to find out what action was being taken to mitigate the neighbour’s behaviour. He said the incident in July 2023 related to officers witnessing noise disturbance at the premises but not taking any formal action to abate the nuisance.
21. The Council replied to Mr B on 9 November 2023. It said it had closed its case in May 2023 and the diary sheets submitted since were not sufficient evidence on which to take action; officers needed to witness the nuisance. It said Mr B had not provided evidence to support his view that Mr X had behaved unreasonably. It requested the CCTV evidence again and put Mr B back on the list to access ‘out of hours’ visits to witness the noise.
22. Mr B replied that evening disputing the Council ‘s version of events and repeating that the neighbour had a court date scheduled for trial.
23. On 16 November 2023 the Council refused the request for an ASB case review. It said he did not meet the threshold for case review as he had not demonstrated that the Council or the Police had failed to act on reported incidents within the last six months.
24. On 17 November 2023 the Council replied to Mr B’s email disputing that he had not replied to the Council’s offer of out of hours access again on 20 October 2023. It also said the matters he had raised regarding his neighbour’s court date were for the police to deal with.
25. On 8 December 2023 Mr B requested a case review by an independent chair of another Council. Mr B’s partner rang the ‘out of hours’ line on two occasions in mid-December 2023. Mr B’s neighbour made counter-allegations about nuisance and disturbance from Mr B.
26. On 19 December 2023 another council in the area agreed to carry out a case review in the new year.
27. On 22 December 2023 the Council informed Mr B’s partner that the case was closed and as no further evidence of incidents had been provided, they were no longer on the out of hours list. It said if they were experiencing problems they should send in diary sheets and the Council would reconsider.
28. Mr B’s partner sent in evidence of an incident in March 2023.
29. In early January 2024 the other council put back the case review until March or April due to staffing issues. The Council informed Mr B of this on 5 January 2024 and he confirmed he wished to continue.
30. On 25 January 2024 Mr B’s partner reported an incident of banging on the ceiling and a flood at the property. The police had been called and she submitted diary sheets.
31. In February 2024 the other council said it could no longer carry out the case review. The Council informed Mr B of this and directed him to complain to us. Mr B complained to us in March 2024.
32. The Council also reopened Mr B’s case in February 2024 and throughout March and April 2024 attempted to witness the noise nuisance on multiple occasions but was unsuccessful. It also gave Mr B access to the out of hours line again. Following a pre-planned visit towards the end of April 2024, where no noise was witnessed. Mr B said he was affected by noise daily and had also been charged with assault on his neighbour, he said in self-defence. He submitted a report to the community safety team, but it said it could not deal with the matter as it was for the police.
33. The Council were also investigating counter-allegations from Mr B’s neighbour throughout this period.

Analysis

ASB case review

34. I have not identified fault with the way the Council considered Mr B’s request for a community case review. It considered the evidence of the alleged three incidents, concluded they did not meet the threshold and explained to Mr B the reasons for this: one related to an incident in March 2023 outside of the 6 month period and the other two were the same incident. Mr B had also failed to provide evidence that the Council or the police had not responded to the complaints properly.
35. Following the decision, it tried to get another council to review the decision but was unsuccessful, so Mr B complained to us. I have not found fault with the way the Council considered this issue.

Ongoing nuisance/ASB

36. I am satisfied that the Council has properly investigated the complaints made by Mr B. It has responded promptly to reports of incidents, requested diary sheets and noise app recordings, and tried to witness the noise by visiting. Unfortunately, officers have not managed to witness any nuisance and so it has not been able to take any further action. The Council also considered a referral to the community safety team, but it considered the situation was more a police matter. I have not found fault with its actions here.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman