Summary: Neither the Housing Ombudsman (HOS) nor the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) find fault with the Council's handling of Mr X's reports about uncontrolled dogs. Both HOS and LGSCO find the Council delayed acting on Mr X's reports of verbal harassment. LGSCO find fault with the Council for failing to consider whether to use its powers to tackle this anti-social behaviour. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) about:
1. Uncontrolled dogs
2. Verbal harassment
2. Mr X also complained about the Council's complaint handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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. The LGSCO considers 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. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is 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)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

What we have and have not investigated

11. Mr X continued to make further reports to the Council and Ombudsman about the dogs following the final complaint response in March 2024.
12. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states the HOS may not consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
13. The law says LGSCO cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
14. Therefore, this investigation centres on Mr X’s complaints to the Council in December 2023 and March 2024, and the Council's responses in February and March 2024. If Mr X has concerns about the landlord’s handling of his reports after March 2024, he can raise a new complaint with it.
15. Any new investigation by the Ombudsmen following a new complaint could take into consideration this investigation’s findings when identifying any wider themes or issues.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

16. Mr X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
17. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.

Back to top

What we found

Anti-social behaviour

18. 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.
19. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; and
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

20. The 2014 Act introduced powers for Councils to tackle ASB. These include:

• 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; and
• a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for).

What happened

21. Mr X is a tenant of the Council. He lives in a block of flats in an estate.
22. Evidence provided for this investigation shows that from at least mid-June 2023 Mr X made multiple reports to the Council about antisocial behaviour (ASB) incidents in the block. The large majority of these related to neighbours’ dogs, which he reported were often off their leads and he felt threatened. However, a small number of his reports involved neighbours’ verbal harassment and threats, including what Mr X took as racial abuse.
23. The Council opened an ASB case, visited Mr X and the block, corresponded regularly with him, spoke with the primary dog owner, and wrote to other tenants asking them to keep control of their pets. It gave Mr X diary sheets to log incidents, discussed the issue with the dog owners, liaised with the police about the reports Mr X had also made to them, and corresponded with Mr X’s MP who had made enquiries on his behalf.
24. The Council told Mr X at the end of June 2023 that it was closing the ASB case in relation to the dogs issue because it did not believe it was an ASB matter. Nonetheless, it said Mr X should report any future incidents which it would consider on a case-by-case basis.
25. Mr X reported soon afterwards that dogs were off their leads again. He said he was not happy that the Council had closed the case. The Council explained how Mr X could ask for an ASB community trigger review. No evidence of him doing so has been seen.
26. Mr X complained to the Council in September 2023. He explained his dissatisfaction with its handling of both the dog issues and the harassment, and the impacts the issues had been having on him. The Council acknowledged the complaint but there is no evidence of a further response.
27. Following further reports from Mr X in September and October 2023 the Council visited him with the police. The police said there was no formal action it could take in response to his reports. The Council said it would consider issuing a community protection notice against one of the neighbours. It is not apparent what happened following that.
28. Having not had a complaint response Mr X asked the HOS for assistance in January 2024. He referred to both ASB matters, but his focus was on the dog issue. The Service asked the Council in February to respond the complaint, which it did on 29 February.
29. The Council acknowledged Mr X had made ASB reports about the dogs and harassment. It explained it had recently contacted him to discuss his concerns and was arranging meetings with the relevant parties. It explained that dog leashes were not a tenancy requirement but keeping them under control was. It said it would write again to tenants reminding them of this. It also acknowledged and apologised for not responding to Mr X’s original complaint. It offered £100 compensation for that and explained the next actions it would take with his ASB case.
30. Mr X asked to escalate his complaint shortly afterwards. He explained he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions regarding both the harassment and the dogs, and the level of compensation.
31. The Council sent its final complaint response in March 2024. It addressed Mr X’s concerns about both the dogs issue and the harassment. It repeated its earlier comments and explanations about the dogs, confirming it had written to tenants asking them to use leads. It also addressed other issues Mr X had raised, such as whether the dangerous dogs act was relevant in this case, and his reports that owners were not cleaning up after their dogs.
32. The Council explained it was working with the police to investigate Mr X’s harassment reports. It explained it needed to wait for the outcome of the police investigation, at which time it would consider what steps to take. The Council provided information and contact details for support services Mr X could contact in the meantime, and addressed queries he had made about moving homes, explaining his different options. It said that, depending on the police investigation outcome, it might be able to offer him a direct management move. It explained how Mr X could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with its handling of his complaint.
33. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman because he wanted the Council to take more robust action about the dogs being off their leads.

Our findings

Uncontrolled dogs

34. The evidence provided for this investigation shows almost all Mr X’s reports about the dogs related to them being off their leads in the external communal areas and gardens of the estate. Mr X’s flat is on the ground floor of the block and some of its windows look directly into the garden or onto the lift building. Because of that he could see the dogs in the gardens and other communal areas, and when dogs urinated it would sometimes be against the walls under his window or against the nearby lift building, also within his view. None of his reports suggest he (or his pet cats) was ever attacked or physically threatened by any of the dogs. Rather, he explained to the Council he had a fear of dogs and therefore their presence unleashed (or even on a long lead) caused him anxiety and distress, along with outrage at the owners for allowing their dogs to urinate so close to his home.
35. Government guidance states “It is against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere”. Mr X had reported his concerns about the dogs to the police. The records show the Council did not consider the incidents Mr X reported indicated the dogs were dangerous or out of control.
36. Mr X blamed the dogs for the death of one of his cats. He explained the cat died of a heart attack which he attributed to distress caused by the dogs. While this was clearly upsetting for Mr X, no evidence was provided to the Council which might reasonably support that causal link.
37. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will assess any reports it receives to find the next steps to take in accordance with the information provided. Nothing in the evidence suggests that owning a dog was against the other tenants’ tenancy agreements, or that dogs had to be leashed. Along with there being no meaningful reports of an actual physical risk or similar from the dogs and the lack of police action, the landlord’s conclusion that Mr X’s reports were not ASB was reasonable and in line with its policy.
38. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of June 2023 explaining it would close the ASB case it had opened for the dog reports because it did not consider them to constitute ASB. In a follow up email it explained how Mr X could appeal its decision through the case review (formerly known as the community trigger) process. There is no evidence of him doing so, but it was appropriate and in line with its policy to both explain its decision and how Mr X could have it reviewed. Depending on the circumstances, that possibility is potentially open to him with any future reports where he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s ASB decisions.
39. The landlord’s housing strategy document states one of its focuses is on “supporting customers not just to resolve their housing issues, but also encouraging them to improve their health and wellbeing.” While the Council had concluded the dog reports were not ASB, in line with its broader goals it still had an obligation to try to resolve the dispute. To that end, it discussed the issue with dog owners, wrote to tenants asking them to keep their dogs on leads and ensure they cleaned up after them, investigated and responded to Mr X’s queries about the dangerous dogs act, and managed Mr X’s expectations about what it could and could not do.
40. Overall, HOS finds the landlord’s handling of Mr X’s dog reports was reasonable, proportionate to the circumstances of what he was reporting, and in line with its policies and housing management aims.
41. The Council has powers as both a landlord and a local authority to deal with ASB. Its ASB policy covers both services and sets out the Council's powers under the law to deal with ASB. The Council properly considered whether Mr X's reports about dogs amounted to ASB. Having concluded it did not, it properly communicated this to Mr X. This is the approach the Ombudsman expects and LGSCO does not find fault with the Council on this part of the complaint.

Verbal harassment

42. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that “when anti social behaviour is challenged at an early stage and not be allowed to manifest over time the likelihood of the behaviour continuing is significantly reduced.” Its website states it recognises the seriousness of harassment and hate crime. However, it has not provided evidence of a specific procedure it will follow when it receives such reports.
43. The landlord’s ASB records confirm it received a report from Mr X about a neighbour’s threatening behaviour in May 2023, and that it passed it to the relevant officer and opened an ASB case. The records do not give any details of the nature of the harassment or of any action at that time.
44. Mr X provided to the Council in mid-June 2023 numerous diary sheets documenting what he considered to be ASB incidents over the last year. The vast majority related to the dogs. However, two of them referred to recent incidents of verbal and racial harassment or intimidation by dog owners, in May and June 2023. These were clearly serious allegations. In line with its policy the Council should have taken clear steps to investigate quickly.
45. Its ASB records refer to it discussing with Mr X on 26 June 2023 “an aggressive incident that happened a few weeks ago.” The note says the police confirmed they were not taking action because there was no corroborating evidence. It then focuses on the dogs issue, and the Council's decision to close the ASB case. It therefore appears that no other action was taken at that time about the harassment reports.
46. No evidence has been provided by the Council of it assessing Mr X’s reports or treating them with the level of seriousness they required. While its note refers to the police, no evidence of its contact with them at that time has been seen, nor of any information they provided. The importance of assessing the facts of the reports and partnership working is set out in the Council's ASB policy. Without clear evidence of it taking these steps this investigation cannot conclude it acted reasonably. Both HOS and LGSCO find maladministration.
47. It appears the harassment was an escalation of the dog dispute between Mr X and neighbours. If so, focusing on resolving that dispute (as the Council did) could be considered a sensible approach to take as it would in turn reduce the escalating tensions. However, no evidence has been provided of the Council making that assessment and deciding that was its plan of action.
48. Mr X made further reports to the Council about the dogs (but not of harassment) in September 2023. The Council arranged a joint meeting with Mr X and police in October, in response to what it described as his frequent calls about harassment to both organisations. The police had concluded no crime was being committed, but the Council said it would consider issuing a community protection notice against one of the dog owners and reopening the ASB case. It is not clear from the evidence whether this meeting related to the dogs issue or the harassment (or both). Nonetheless, no evidence of follow up action has been seen. Both HOS and LGSCO find this failure to act, as either landlord or local authority, was maladministration.
49. Mr X made new harassment reports to the Council in late January 2024. There is no evidence of any response or action about them until early March when it visited him to discuss the situation. At that visit Mr X’s carer confirmed she had witnessed racial harassment. The Council asked Mr X for details of his police reports and from that point the records show its greater focus on the issue. This included more frequent interaction with the police, who by that time were formally investigating the reports.
50. In its first complaint response the Council acknowledged that Mr X’s reports had involved two elements, the dogs and the harassment. It accepted the problems were ongoing and apologised for “the amount of time it has taken to progress with the initial concerns raised.” It said it partially upheld Mr X’s ASB complaint because of that amount of time, and explained the actions it was currently taking to address his reports. It did not offer any other remedies which the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) advises a landlord to consider when something has gone wrong, such as explaining how the poor service had occurred, what it intended to do to avoid similar failings in future, or a financial remedy.
51. Mr X escalated his complaint partly because he did not feel the Council had properly considered the harassment he had been experiencing and reporting.
52. In response, the Council explained again the current actions it was taking, acknowledged the seriousness of his reports, and provided details about support services available to him while it waited for clarity from the police. At that time the police were taking the lead on the racial and verbal harassment allegations, and the Council was waiting for the outcome from their investigations before deciding its next steps. LGSCO finds this was fault. The police work to the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in deciding whether to bring criminal charges. The Council has its own powers to deal with ASB, such as issuing a community protection notice. Its powers can be enacted on the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities'. It should not wait for the police to conclude an investigation to decide whether to use them.
53. It was pragmatic and appropriate for the Council to recognise there was potentially a risk for Mr X while the investigations continued, and provide information and guidance about support options. However, as in its first response the Council showed no appreciation of the seriousness of its delayed response to Mr X’s original reports in mid-2023, and provided no remedies for that failing. It also contradicted itself by saying its first complaint response had not upheld his ASB complaint.
54. HOS and LGSCO find the Council took to long to deal with Mr X's reports of harassment in 2023 and early 2024. This showed no appreciation of the seriousness of the allegations. It acknowledged in its first complaint response that it had been slow to act, but did not provide any of the remedies it should have considered to put things right.

Complaint handling

55. Mr X sent the Council his first complaint in September 2023. There is no doubt it received it, because it sent an automatic acknowledgement. However, the Council then misplaced it, and chasing by Mr X and intervention by the Housing Ombudsman was needed before the Council responded to it. That was clearly poor service.
56. In its first complaint response the Council acknowledged its poor service. It explained in detail what had gone wrong, and the wider process changes it was making to provide a better complaint service. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to Mr X and offered him £100 compensation. These remedies were all in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations as set out in the Code, and were proportionate and relevant to the nature and scale of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

Conclusion

57. HOS finds:
• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the Council in regard to its handling of Mr X’s reports about uncontrolled dogs.
• In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the Council in its handling of Mr X’s reports about verbal harassment.
• In accordance with paragraph 53.b. the Council has offered redress to Mr X prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its poor complaint handling.
58. LGSCO finds:
• There was no fault by the Council in its handling of Mr X's reports about uncontrolled dogs.
• The Council was at fault for delay acting on Mr X's reports about verbal harassment.
• The Council was at fault for failing to consider whether to use its powers to address ASB.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

59. Within four weeks of our final decision the Council, should apologise to Mr X for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
60. The HOS orders that within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Mr X £450.
61. The ASB policy the Council provided for this investigation is broad and general. It lacks reference to some aspects of basic practice for handling ASB, such as risk assessing the victim or creating a plan of action to address ASB reports. It also lacks guidance about serious ASB allegations involving racial harassment or hate crimes. This lack of detail may have been a factor in the landlord’s initial poor handling of Mr X’s harassment repots. The Council is ordered to review this investigation’s findings to identify what lessons it can learn, especially in regard to whether its policies and guidance provide suitably comprehensive information when dealing with serious ASB allegations. A report of its conclusions and the steps in intends to take to avoid repeating the mistakes seen here must be provided to the Ombudsman and resident within 8 weeks of this report.
62. The Councilshould provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

LGSCO agreed action

63. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should:

• consider whether to use any of its powers to address the verbal harassment Mr X reported and write to him explaining its decision.

64. Within eight weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should:
• Provide training or guidance to relevant staff on the Council's powers to tackle ASB, including the relevant standard of proof and that the Council should not, as a default, wait for the conclusion of a police investigation before deciding whether to use those powers.
65. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

66. We have completed our investigation. There was some fault by the Council. The required action is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman