Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to consider anti-social behaviour reports about land it owns. Mr X says this has caused him ongoing disturbances. We find no fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council will not accept responsibility for an area of land where children play ball games and cause a nuisance. As a result, Mr X complains the Council are failing to investigate anti-social behaviour.
2. Mr X says the behaviour is causing a disturbance and prevents him from relaxing in his own home.
3. Mr X would like the Council to take responsibility for the land and change the landscape of the land to prevent it being used for ball games.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
10. 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.

11. 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. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. 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.
13. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
14. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
15. The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)
16. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
17. 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.
18. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
19. Asking for an ASB case review is not the same as making a formal complaint against a council for how it has handled reports of ASB.

What happened

20. Mr X made a community and neighbourhood nuisance report to the Council in April 2024. He said there were children gathering in a green space near his house and playing football. This generated noise and disturbance, which he felt amounted to ASB.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X and advised that it would write to the parents of the children to ask them to find somewhere else to play. It also said there was no enforcement action it would take.
22. The Council wrote to local parents asking that parents’ guide their children to play elsewhere and be mindful of other local residents.
23. Mr X replied to the Council advising the issue was still ongoing and that he had reported it to the police. He provided the addresses of where he believed the children lived. He asked the Council to take action to stop the children from gathering and playing. This included action against the parents, and for the Council to make the area unusable for children to play.
24. The Council told Mr X that it could not take tenancy enforcement action on anyone who was not a Council tenant. It also told Mr X that it would be looking to resolve the matter through discussion and co-operation of the parents, and not through legal action. The Council explained to Mr X that they cannot force parents to take their children elsewhere to play, and suggested a site visit to discuss ways forward.
25. In May 2024 the Council carried out a site visit and met with Mr X. It explained to him that it would not be taking direct enforcement action to resolve the issue.
26. Mr X continued to report issues related to the children playing football to the Council. The Council offered to again visit the site.
27. In June 2024, Mr X said he has contacted the police about the issue. The Council asked Mr X to provide details of the case with the police.
28. In June 2024, the Council continued to receive reports about the children playing from Mr X.
29. The Council closed the case in July 2024. It recognised the case was unresolved, but it had identified the parents involved, written to them and provided advice. The Council felt there was no further action it could take and closed the case.

Complaint handling

30. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2024. He complained that the Council had not taken action against the parents of the children he had reported and the case had been closed despite being unresolved.
31. The Council’s stage one response said that it had carried out checks which determined that Mr X’s property and the green space in front are privately owned and therefore not the responsibility of the Council. Therefore, the Council could not take enforcement action about the issue. However, the Council had visited the site, and written to the parents and provided advice about how to avoid further issues. The Council felt there was no more it could do, and therefore had closed the case.
32. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. He asked to escalate the issue to stage two. In his request, he said that part of the area where the children were playing did belong to the Council. He strongly felt the actions by the Council were not impactful and requested further action be taken.
33. The Council’s final response said

• The area Mr X was complaining about was private property, and therefore the Council could not take further enforcement action.
• It had done what it could to help resolve the issue by writing to the parents and providing guidance and advice
• It accepted the case closure notification was unhelpful, and would look to improve this in its next update.

Analysis

34. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to properly explain why it has made a decision. We call this ‘fault’, and where we find it, we can consider how it has affected the outcome and ask the council to address this.
35. However, we do not provide a right of appeal against council decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf. If we do not find fault in how a council has made a decision, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is the wrong decision. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
36. The Council spoke to Mr X, other residents, carried out a site visit, and wrote to the parents of the children involved. I cannot see that the Council concluded there is evidence of ASB in this case.
37. Ms X says the behaviour does amount to ASB, but the decision is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. We cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there is fault in this case.
38. This is because officers considered the information provided by Mr X and have investigated his allegations according to the Council’s general enforcement policy and the requirements of the Statutory Guidance. This was suitable action for the Council to take to find out whether there was ASB. Council officers did not establish there was evidence of ASB from the information gained. So, it has taken action to deal with the issues raised by providing advice and guidance. This is a decision the officers are entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached the decision from the documents I have seen.
39. I understand part of Mr X’s complaint is the Council has failed recognise it owns some of the land complained about. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the land does belong to the Council. I understand it would have been helpful for the Council to clarify and respond to this point in the complaint. But, whether the Council owns the land does not change the outcome, which is the Council has not decided there is no ASB taking place, and has decided there is no reason to take further action.
40. Additionally, if Mr X believes there is continuing antisocial behaviour, he can consider asking the Council carry out an anti-social behaviour case review. This is where the Council can review the reports of ASB from Mr X, if he has reported three or more incidents in the last six months and remains unhappy with the outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I find no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman