Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments when arranging a meeting with him and failed to act on antisocial behaviour he experienced. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with the antisocial behaviour concerns Mr B raised. The Council failed to address the concerns Mr B raised before the meeting and delayed dealing with his logs of anti social behaviour. An apology, drawing up a policy on applying reasonable adjustments and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to put in place reasonable adjustments to enable him to comfortably attend a meeting which took place in December 2022; and
• failed to act on antisocial behaviour he experienced from his neighbour.
2. Mr B says because the Council has not taken action he has experienced antisocial behaviour from his neighbour over a longer period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 an injustice, 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. 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.
7. 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

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Mr B and the organisation 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

10. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in law (section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
11. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
12. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
13. 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.
14. 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 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.

Background

17. Mr B is autistic and began complaining about the actions of his neighbour to the Council’s community safety department in October 2022. The Council spoke to Mr B and asked him to send in logs of incidents experienced once a week. The Council then contacted the police to get details of its involvement. The police confirmed it did not have any active investigation open and had not issued any formal warnings to Mr B’s neighbour. The police said it had given her advice about future conduct though.
18. Mr B provided his first log to the Council on 24 October with a further log on 8 November.
19. After Mr B chased the Council on 21 November for a response it told him it would arrange a meeting with him and two of its officers. In response Mr B said he would have difficulty meeting with one person he did not know and that an adviser from the citizens advice bureau would accompany him. Mr B asked the Council to arrange the meeting at one of the Council’s offices or at a citizens advice bureau office. The Council told Mr B it would meet with the landlord for the two properties first. That meeting took place on 13 December.
20. The Council then arranged a meeting with Mr B. That took place on 19 December. At that meeting Mr B agreed to the proposal for fencing to be erected between the two properties, which was a matter previously discussed with the landlord. The Council also offered Mr B mediation which he declined. The meeting agreed Mr B would continue to provide ongoing reports to the Council. Mr B had to leave the meeting early for a medical appointment.
21. There is no evidence of further contact between the Council and Mr B until 24 February 2023 when Mr B put in a complaint and provided videos of antisocial behaviour from his neighbour. The Council responded to that complaint on 9 March and said the community safety manager would contact Mr B to discuss the videos and any other concerns.
22. The Council’s community safety manager left a telephone message for Mr B on 15 March. In response Mr B said he did not want to be contacted by the community safety manager. The Council acknowledged that email and asked Mr B to let the manager know if he wanted to reconsider.
23. In November 2023 Mr B emailed the Council’s housing department to ask whether he should put in another letter from his GP as his neighbour was still harassing him. The Council advised him he could put another letter in to support his housing register application. Mr B was in band 2 at that point, partly due to the impact on his mental health of having to live next door to a disruptive neighbour.
24. In May 2024 Mr B provided the Council with a copy of a letter from his GP. That letter asked the Council to review Mr B’s housing due to damp and mould in the house. The GP also referred to the fact Mr B was experiencing mental health issues and ongoing harassment from his neighbour which was affecting his well-being.

Analysis

25. I am exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what happened at the meeting in December 2022 even though that is more than 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman. That is because I am satisfied the concerns Mr B has about what happened at the meeting relate to whether the Council applied his reasonable adjustments and understood its equality duty. I am satisfied Mr B did not have queries about the disability awareness or equality training the officers that dealt with him at that meeting had received until the Council responded to his Freedom of Information Act request in August 2023. I am satisfied Mr B complained to the Ombudsman within 12 months of that.
26. Mr B says the Council officers that met with him in December 2022 failed to take into account his mental health issues or put in place reasonable adjustments to enable him to comfortably attend the meeting and take part. Mr B says he had asked for only one officer to be present at the meeting as he had difficulty coping with more people due to his autism. Mr B says the Council failed to comply with that.
27. The evidence I have seen satisfies me when the Council first proposed the meeting with Mr B it made clear this would take place with a Council officer and a representative from the police. I am satisfied that was later changed to two Council officers. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B referred to his difficulty coping with meeting more than one person he did not know when responding to that email. Mr B did not specifically request a reasonable adjustment and the Council did not agree one. However, I would have expected the Council to ask Mr B whether he was comfortable to meet with more than one person given what he had said and consider whether he required a reasonable adjustment. Failure to do that is fault.
28. I am satisfied though the Council arranged for the meeting to take place at a venue of Mr B’s choice. I am also satisfied Mr B had an adviser from the citizens advice bureau with him to help him. I therefore could not say the Council failed to consider Mr B’s needs, although it should have checked with him whether he required a reasonable adjustment. I have seen no evidence to suggest either Mr B or the adviser from the citizens advice bureau raised concerns at the meeting about the number of people involved. In those circumstances I consider a reasonable remedy would be for the Council to apologise to Mr B. As the Council does not have a policy on applying reasonable adjustments I also recommended the Council draw up a policy and remind officers of the need to discuss whether a reasonable adjustment is required if a resident raises concerns. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
29. Mr B says the Council officers that attended the meeting made him feel as though he was overreacting and did not give him an opportunity to ask questions. The Ombudsman has to rely on the documentary records. The notes from the meeting show the Council began by inviting Mr B to describe the situation and then went on to discuss those areas with him. There is nothing in the written record of the meeting to suggest officers told Mr B they believed he was overreacting. Nor is there any evidence in the notes of the meeting to suggest the Council stopped Mr B saying anything or presenting his evidence. I note though Mr B had to leave the meeting early due to a medical appointment, which may have contributed to his feeling unable to present everything he wanted the Council to consider. As there is no evidence the Council prevented Mr B asking questions or presenting evidence I have no grounds to criticise it.
30. Mr B says because of the way he was treated at the meeting he does not believe the officers he dealt with had received disability awareness training. Mr B also points to the fact that when responding to his Freedom of Information Act request the figures the Council provided about the number of staff undertaking such training means it is unlikely those officers had received any training.
31. While I understand Mr B’s concern the Council has confirmed the background of the two officers in question. It is clear those officers have significant experience of dealing with vulnerable groups and those with mental health issues. I therefore could not say the Council provided officers to meet with Mr B who did not understand how to deal with vulnerable groups. I appreciate Mr B’s experience of the meeting was difficult but I cannot comment on that given there is no video recording of the meeting.
32. Mr B says the Council failed to act on antisocial behaviour he reported from his neighbour. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B first reported issues with antisocial behaviour from his neighbour in October 2022. I am satisfied the Council dealt with that report properly by:
• speaking to Mr B over the telephone;
• asking Mr B to provide weekly logs of any incidents;
• contacting the police;
• contacting Mr B's landlord;
• meeting with Mr B's landlord;
• meeting with Mr B and his representative.
33. The Council had taken all those actions by December 2022, which was within two months of the initial report of problems. I therefore could not say the Council failed to act. There was a delay dealing with Mr B’s log sheets as he had to chase the Council. That is fault, although I do not consider it likely this affected what happened.
34. I am satisfied as a result of those investigations the Council obtained agreement from Mr B's landlord to erect fencing between the two properties. I appreciate Mr B did not see the benefit of that. However, I am satisfied the Council considered that could reduce the issues given the information the landlord provided about conflict between the two parties in communal areas. I am also satisfied the Council suggested mediation. So, I could not say Council failed to act.
35. I appreciate from Mr B's point of view he did not consider mediation appropriate. I understand why he would take that view. However, it is not fault for the Council to suggest mediation given its experience is this can resolve the situation and as it is voluntary.
36. I have seen no evidence that Mr B reported any further antisocial behaviour to the Council until he contacted it in February 2023 to put in a complaint. That is despite the fact one of the actions agreed at the meeting in December 2022 was for Mr B to provide ongoing reports of any issues. It would have been good practice for the Council to write to Mr B following the meeting in December 2022 to confirm what had been discussed. I cannot criticise the Council for failing to take action following the meeting in December 2022 though when there is no evidence Mr B provided further reports of issues to enable the Council to consider action.
37. I am satisfied the Council dealt with the complaint Mr B put in in February 2023 as it arranged for a manager to speak to Mr B to discuss the outstanding issues. I am satisfied nothing further happened with that because Mr B declined to speak to the officer. That is his right, but what that means is the Council did not have any evidence on which to base any future action. Unfortunately for antisocial behaviour complaints the Council has to have up-to-date evidence to enable it to act. That necessarily means it has to rely on the person experiencing the antisocial behaviour continuing to report issues. As Mr B did not do so in this case I have no grounds to criticise the Council.
38. In reaching that view I recognise Mr B contacted the Council again in November 2023. The Council notes this was not contact with the community safety department. However, given Mr B raised concerns about ongoing harassment in his email I would have expected the department to ask Mr B for permission to pass the matter on to community safety. Failure to do that is fault. Given Mr B had not co-operated by providing regular reports of incidents to the Council and had refused a discussion with the manager though, I do not consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the community safety team had contacted Mr B in November 2023 it would have resulted in a different outcome. I recommended the Council ensure it asks the residents’ permission to pass any correspondence to other Council departments where issues relating to that department are raised. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
39. I am also aware Mr B sent the Council a copy of a letter from his GP in May 2024. That letter referred to repair issues with Mr B's property but also said Mr B was experiencing ongoing harassment from his neighbour. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council dealt with that as a representation in relation to Mr B's housing register application. That is because the letter was addressed in the housing department. Again, it would have been helpful if the housing department had asked Mr B’s permission to share that document with community safety. I do not consider it likely the outcome would have been different had the Council done that though. That is because Mr B had not provided any reports of issues to the Council to enable it to consider whether to take any action between December 2022 and the current date. As I have made clear, for the Council to take action it needs Mr B to cooperate by providing reports.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the frustration he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• remind officers of the need to consider whether a reasonable adjustment is required if a resident raises concerns;
• remind officers of the need to ask the residents’ permission to share correspondence received by one department with other departments when the correspondence includes information relevant to both.
41. Within four months of my decision the Council should draw up a policy on applying reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman