Summary: Mrs D complained the Council has been too slow in dealing with her reports of anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. We find Council was at fault for some delays in dealing with Mrs D’s reports of anti-social behaviour. This caused her distress, upset and frustration. The Council apologised to Mrs D and paid her £500. This is a suitable remedy to address Mrs D’s injustice. We do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained the Council has been too slow in dealing with her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbours. This has had a devastating impact on her and her family.

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. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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

5. I have investigated the Council’s use of its general ASB powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. I have not investigated the actions of the Council in its role as a landlord for the reasons set out in paragraph three above. However, I have referred to it, where necessary, to provide context and an understanding of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Mrs D 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

Anti-social behaviour

8. Councils have a general duty to tackle ASB. But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable. They may approach a complaint 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 (The 2014 Act).
9. The 2014 Act introduced new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. Councils may apply to the Courts for a civil injunction or issue a community protection notice (CPN). 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. Councils must issue a community protection warning (CPW) in advance of a CPN.
10. The statutory guidance which accompanies the 2014 Act sets out some early and informal interventions which may be used to address anti-social behaviour. This includes verbal and written warnings, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.

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

11. The 2014 Act 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’. 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.

Statutory nuisances

12. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles.
13. 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.

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.
15. 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.

What happened

16. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
17. Mrs D lives in privately rented housing. The neighbours involved in this complaint are Council tenants.
18. Mrs D contacted the Council in May 2023 and complained about ASB from her neighbours. She said they were rude, threatening and noisy. The Council asked Mrs D to complete an ASB diary.
19. The housing officer and ASB officer visited Mrs D’s neighbour the following month to discuss the alleged ASB. They told her to reduce the noise.
20. Mrs D continued to report ASB issues. She also reported an altercation with her neighbours. The housing officer and ASB officer visited Mrs D’s neighbours and issued a verbal warning.
21. The Council sent a CPW to Mrs D’s neighbour in November about their ASB. It said if they did not stop their behaviour, it would consider issuing a CPN. It also installed noise monitoring equipment in Mrs D’s house after her continuous reports of noise. It reviewed the evidence and decided there was no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance.
22. Mrs D sent the Council her ASB diary sheets. She also stated her neighbour had consistently broken the terms of the CPW. The Council liaised with the police about the ongoing issues. It drafted a CPN in March 2024 but decided not to issue it because of pending police action. The housing officer also issued a further written warning to Mrs D’s neighbour.
23. Mrs D expressed concern with how the Council was dealing with the case and the impact it was having on her and her family. The Council signposted Mrs D to the anti-social behaviour case review process. It also held a joint enforcement task meeting with the police and enforcement officers to decide what to do about the ongoing ASB. It created an action plan and agreed to serve a CPN after the police had issued a warrant for drugs possession.
24. The Council held an internal discussion at the end of April about installing further noise monitoring equipment in Mrs D’s house because of her continuous noise complaints.
25. Mrs D complained to the Council in May about how it had handled the ASB. She said its failures had a detrimental impact on her family. The Council responded and refused to investigate her complaint.
26. The Council made a referral for Mrs D and her neighbour to receive mediation the same month. It also issued CPW letters to Mrs D’s neighbours and another CPN.
27. Mrs D referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in June. Shortly after that, the Council agreed to investigate her complaint. It also issued a further ASB action plan to tackle the ongoing issues.
28. Mrs D has confirmed she has now moved out of her house because of the issues with her neighbours.
29. The Council has recently issued a stage two response to Mrs D’s complaint. It has accepted some delays in dealing with the ASB and responding to her complaint. It apologised and offered £500 for the distress and upset caused. Mrs D accepted the Council’s offer.

Back to top

Analysis

30. As Mrs D’s former neighbours are Council tenants, the Council has powers as a landlord to deal with the ASB. After the case was passed for investigation, the Council started the process of evicting Mrs D’s neighbours from their property. I also understand the Council’s housing department took the lead with this case, and therefore some of the written and verbal warnings it issued were in its capacity as a landlord. As I have explained in paragraph five of this statement, we have no jurisdiction to consider the Council in its capacity as a landlord. This includes the eviction process and whether the Council properly enforced the tenancy agreement.
31. However, I can consider the Council’s use of its general powers to tackle ASB. The Council did issue several CPNs and CPWs. It also liaised with the police and created an action plan to resolve the ASB. However, given the volume of information Mrs D had provided about the ongoing ASB, the Council should have acted more quickly to decide whether there was a breach of the CPWs/CPNs and whether it needed to move to the next stage of the process. I do however accept there was one period when the Council did delay serving a CPW because of the police’s involvement. It also should have also created the action plan much sooner given the continuing ASB.
32. The Council also delayed installing noise monitoring equipment. It did not install it until December 2023. This is despite Mrs D first raising concerns about noise in May 2023. Mrs D says by time the Council installed the equipment, her neighbours had gone on holiday, and therefore the noise had reduced. The Council also decided at the end of April 2024 it would reinstall the equipment. However, there is no evidence it did so. This is fault.
33. The Council’s faults have caused Mrs D distress, upset and frustration. She also has some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different and whether the ASB may have reduced but for the Council’s delays. The Council has accepted it was at fault and paid Mrs D £500 for the injustice caused. It has also apologised. Our guidance on remedies states where we decide it is appropriate we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. I am therefore satisfied with the Council’s actions, and it is in line with our guidance. I do not recommend anything further. Mrs D says she has suffered a loss of earnings because of the Council’s faults. However, we generally do not consider loss of earnings as that is often best resolved by the courts.
34. In a recent case we asked the Council to carry out a full review of how it is dealing with ASB reports and refresh the knowledge of staff involved in the process. Therefore, I have not recommended any further service improvements in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs D an injustice. The Council has taken suitable action to remedy this injustice and therefore I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman