Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him with a community protection warning, and did not help with neighbour disputes. Mr X said this caused unnecessary distress, frustration, humiliation, and had a disproportionate impact on his mental health. We do not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has taken an unfair approach to his request for mediation and help with problems with neighbour disputes. He also complained the Council wrongly issued him with a community protection warning.
2. Mr X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration. He said it has had a disproportionate impact on his mental health and everyday life. He said it has also caused humiliation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and has a negative effect on the community's quality of life. A community protection notice requires a person to stop their behaviour and, where appropriate, requires the person to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again.
8. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a community protection notice. This is called a community protection warning.

What happened

9. In 2023 and 2024 the Council received reports about Mr X’s behaviour towards his neighbours.
10. Mr X asked the Council for mediation between him and his neighbours. The Council considered this but decided it was not suitable.
11. The Council met with the police. Both the Council and police decided the Council should issue Mr X a community protection warning about his behaviour.
12. The Council issued Mr X a community protection warning. The Council told Mr X it had investigated the allegations made by his neighbours. The Council said Mr X’s behaviour was threatening, intimidating, and unreasonable.
13. The community protection warning said Mr X should not behave like this anymore. It said if he did, the Council might issue a community protection notice.
14. The Council told Mr X that if he needed help to understand and comply with the warning, it would see what it could do to help. It said Mr X may not have intended it, but his behaviour caused hurt and upset. The Council said it was happy to work with him to come up with a plan to allow him to live in peace with his neighbours.
15. Mr X complained.
16. The Council replied. It said it had tried to engage with Mr X throughout, but he was unwilling to engage. It said because Mr X was unwilling to engage, the Council had no choice but to issue the community protection warning.
17. The Council told Mr X it will consider a person’s health conditions or disabilities, but may still need to issue a community protection warning in certain cases. The Council said the evidence justified issuing a community protection warning. The Council offered to meet with Mr X.
18. The Council reviewed the community protection warning. The Council told Mr X it was satisfied the community protection warning was a reasonable and fair course of action, and was appropriately issued. It said it had taken into account his disabilities.
19. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Mediation

20. Mr X complained the Council has taken an unfair approach to his request for mediation.
21. Mr X asked the Council for mediation with his neighbours. The Council considered his request. At the time, Mr X was on police bail with conditions not to contact his neighbours directly or indirectly, so the Council felt mediation would be inappropriate. The Council also said the neighbours did not want mediation with Mr X.
22. The Council was under no obligation to arrange mediation between Mr X and his neighbours just because Mr X asked for it. The Council considered his request and decided mediation was not appropriate.
23. I find no fault with the Council’s decision not to arrange mediation between Mr X and his neighbours. The Council was entitled to decide this.

Neighbour disputes

24. Mr X complained the Council has taken an unfair approach to his request for help with neighbour dispute problems.
25. I find no evidence that the Council refused to help or took a biased attitude towards supporting Mr X’s neighbours over Mr X. The evidence shows the Council tried to engage with Mr X in various ways. The Council offered to work with Mr X to come up with a plan to allow him to live in peace with his neighbours.
26. I find the Council’s actions are evidence of good practice. I do not find fault.

Community protection warning

27. Mr X complained the Council wrongly issued him with a community protection warning.
28. I find the Council appropriately considered the evidence. The Council was entitled to issue Mr X with a community protection warning. I find no fault with the way the Council decided to issue the community protection warning.
29. Mr X said community protection warnings should not be issued to people with mental health problems.
30. The statutory guidance says: “Particular care should be taken to consider how use of the power [to issue community protection warnings] might impact on more vulnerable members of the society.”
31. I find the Council considered Mr X’s disabilities and mental health throughout. The Council did a vulnerability assessment of Mr X after he disclosed certain information about himself. This was appropriate. The Council still decided to issue Mr X a community protection warning. The Council was entitled to do this.
32. A person’s mental health or disabilities do not prevent a council from issuing community protection warnings.
33. Mr X said the Council did not offer him an independent adjudicator. The Council is not obliged to do this. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman