Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal with his complaint about anti-social behaviour from neighbouring properties. Mr X says this has caused him a great deal of distress. We have found no fault in the actions taken by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal with his complaint about anti-social behaviour from neighbouring properties.
2. Mr X says this has caused him a great deal of distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour from a Council tenanted property. This is because we cannot investigate issues of anti-social behaviour arising from Council property.
7. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour arising from a private property.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the information provided by Mr X and have discussed the complaint over the telephone with him.
9. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to enquiries raised about the matter.
10. Both Mr X and the Council were invited to provide comments on my draft decision. Any comments provided have been considered before a final decision was issued.

Back to top

What I found

11. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
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.

13. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.

Community Trigger

14. The Act also introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
15. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to 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.

The Councils anti-social behaviour policy

16. The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy says it will:

• Aim to contact complainants within two working days to gather information.
• Contact other witnesses, make enquiries with other agencies and signpost to other agencies if appropriate.
• Keep complainants informed of developments and aim to provide updates every two weeks.
• Contact the person alleged to have caused or allowed the anti-social behaviour to ensure all facts are gathered.
• Explain the consequences and summarise the next steps.
• Hold to account the people who are causing anti-social behaviour.
• Make us of informal measures such as mediation to resolve issued at an early stage.
• Explain the reasons why if it is decided no further action should be taken and confirm this in writing.

What happened

17. Mr X has been raising issues with the Council about his neighbours for several years. In July 2023, the Council wrote to one of the neighbours Mr X had complained about the noise coming from their TV. The neighbour responded to the Council’s letter but as the Council says it did not receive any noise diary sheets from Mr X it took no further action.
18. The Council wrote to Mr X in August 2023 to ask him to contact it and advised if he did not do so it would close his case.
19. Mr X reported more issues with his neighbour to the Council in early September 2023. He also contacted the police about the issues he was experiencing.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X’s neighbours again in September 2023. The neighbours responded to the Council, but the Council says it did not receive any diary sheets from Mr X, so it took no further action.
21. The Council contacted Mr X in October 2023 to ask if he was still experiencing problems.
22. In November 2023 the Council reviewed what it had received in relation to the reports Mr X was making. It decided there was not enough evidence to continue and wrote to Mr X to explain this.
23. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2024 to report anti-social behaviour by his neighbour. A Team Leader from the Council met with Mr X and explained it had closed the matter due to a lack of evidence. Mr X told the Council he had handed in diary sheets over the previous year.
24. The Council contacted Mr X in mid-January 2024 to report his neighbour for various issues. The Council told Mr X it would refer this to a different team to deal with. Mr X provided diary sheets. The Council added Mr X’s address to an enforcement teams rounds to attempt to witness the noise/anti-social behaviour.
25. Mr X contacted the Council in late January 2024 to say the noise he witnessed was in another property and not his own. The Council said it would close Mr X’s case as it was already investigating a case from the property Mr X witnessed the noise from.
26. The Council visited the property concerned in the reports in February 2024 and decided it would take no further action.
27. Mr X raised a complaint in late February 2024 and said officers had not been returning his calls, closed his case without any resolution and he felt staff had been rude to him.
28. The Council told Mr X the following day it had written to the property concerned again.
29. The Council issued a response to Mr X’s complaint in early March 2024. It apologised for not meeting the standards Mr X expected. It said it had addressed issues with staff and that it would re-open his case.
30. The Council referred the matter to its Tenancy Enforcement Sustainment Team in late March 2024. A member of the team contacted Mr X, and he reported his neighbour recently assaulted him.
31. The Council contacted the Police and Environmental Protection team to check what reports it had received. The Council also asked its team to patrol the area to try to witness the anti-social behaviour Mr X was reporting.
32. The Council interviewed Mr X in late March 2024, and he told them about further issues he as having with his neighbours.
33. Mr X raised a further complaint in early April 2024 and said the Council had failed to re-open his case, staff had been rude and unhelpful. He also said there were issues with the communal area being dirty.
34. The Council completed several site visits to the area in early April 2024 and did not record any instances of anti-social behaviour.
35. Mr X provided the Council with recordings he had taken of the issues he was experiencing in early April 2024 which the Council reviewed.
36. The Council visited Mr X the following day. It referred Mr X for additional support.
37. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-April 2024 to say it had not received any diary sheets and without them it would not take further action. It also told Mr X of his right to take private action in relation to the matter.
38. Mr X provided diary sheets to the Council the following day. The Council then again contacted the Police to confirm if it had received any reports from Mr X.
39. The Council made a further visit in mid-April 2024 to attempt to witness the issues Mr X was reporting but recorded no issues.
40. The Police responded to the Council in mid-April and said both parties had made counter allegations about each other.
41. The Council issued a stage two complaint response in late April which apologised for the delay in re-opening the case and apologised if Mr X felt staff were rude. The Council also visited Mr X the same day and told him it was difficult to know who was being honest as all parties were making similar allegations about each other. The Council also said visits had taken place and it had not witnessed any anti-social behaviour.
42. The Council completed further visits to the area in late April and early May and again reported no issues.
43. The Council told Mr X in mid-May 2024 it would arrange a re-housing application for him and confirmed patrols had taken place, but it had not witnessed any issues. The Council also offered mediation to try to resolve the issues between the neighbours.
44. The Council cancelled the patrols in mid-May 2024 having not witnessed any anti-social behaviour and made a referral for mediation shortly after.
45. Mr X provided further diary sheets to the Council at the end of May 2024 and reported further instances to the Council in early June 2024.
46. The Council received a response about mediation in mid-June which said the matter was not suitable for mediation.
47. Mr X continued to make reports about his neighbour in July 2024 and the Council reviewed the matter under the community trigger legislation.
48. The Council again contacted the Police in mid-July 2024 who said it had received several reports but it decided not to take any formal action.
49. The Council told Mr X there was not enough evidence to take further action in mid-July.
50. Mr X continued to make further reports about his neighbour in August 2024. The Council told Mr X the instances he was reporting would need to be witnessed within his property.
51. The Council referred Mr X for additional support in August 2024.
52. Mr X made further reports to the Council in September 2024.
53. Mr X raised a complaint in October 2024 and said the Council had failed to take action on the matter. The Council responded and detailed the action it had taken.
54. The Council told Mr X it would review the matter in October 2024 and await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation.
55. I understand Mr X has now moved properties following the Councils request for him to be re-housed.

Analysis

56. There is no formal ‘process chart’ for an ASB investigation. Officers should handle each case according to its merits, with a mind to the severity of the alleged behaviour, whether it is frequent or ongoing, and the potential harm to the victims. In any event, the Ombudsman would expect a good investigation to have the following steps:

• A report from the complainant;
• An investigation undertaken by the Council;
• A decision on what action to taken, if any;
• Ongoing monitoring of the case;
• Conclusion of the case.

57. In this case, Mr X made reports to the Council which then:

• Investigated the reports.
• Arranged patrols of the area to attempt to witness the issues.
• Wrote to the neighbour concerned.
• Liaised with the Police and other agencies.
• Arranged additional support for Mr X.
• Arranged a re-housing application for Mr X.
• Reached the view there was not enough evidence to take further action.

58. The Council initially closed Mr X’s case when he advised he was experiencing the issues at a different address. This was because the Council said it was also investigating reports raised from that address. When Mr X complained about this the Council agreed to re-open his case. While I accept the Council could have left the case open its decision to close the case based on the information given by Mr X is not fault. When the Council reviewed this decision, it re-opened the case and apologised to Mr X.
59. I accept the Council could have re-opened the case more quickly having made the decision to do so. However, as the Council was transferring the matter to another team who would have had to review the case before making contact the small delay in contacting Mr X while it did so is not fault.
60. As per paragraph 4, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. As described above, I am satisfied the Council investigated Mr X reports, took a decision on what action to take, and continued to monitor the case. I understand that Mr X has since moved from the property, and as such the case has now been formally closed.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have found no fault in the actions taken by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman