Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Antisocial behaviour : : Antisocial behaviour archive 2005 to date : : Manchester City Council (06B01231)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Manchester City Council (06B01231)

Antisocial behaviour                   Maladministration causing injustice

27 June 2007

The complaint

Mrs A had lived in her street for over 30 years. She complained that the Council applied for an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) against her based on false allegations made by a woman who had recently moved in to the street. Having never been inside a court, she felt that she was now known in the local community as someone associated with an ASBO, and was known to the police. She said that her health was affected and that she took anti-depressants.

What happened

Following complaints from one of Mrs A’s neighbours, including detailed diary sheets alleging persistent noise nuisance and drunken abuse, the Council applied to the court for an interim ASBO. These can be made without the alleged perpetrator of the antisocial behaviour having notice of the impending court hearing. In this case the court rejected the application and so the Council applied for an ‘on notice’ ASBO that required the service of papers on the defendant before the hearing. The Council served the papers on Mrs A two days before the planned hearing. Although this was over six months after the Council had received its first complaint (and more than two months after the Council had made an application to the court), it was the first that Mrs A knew of any complaints against her. The court granted an interim ASBO that Mrs A indicated she wished to contest.

The Council first received complaints from Mrs A’s neighbour in June 2004. The interim ASBO that was granted in December 2004 was discharged in March 2005 and the Council’s investigation continued until April 2005. In all of this time the council failed to give Mrs A the opportunity to defend herself against the allegations made against her. Once she was aware of the allegations against her, Mrs A was able to produce ample evidence in her defence (22 letters, mostly from neighbours living close by her, confirming that not only was the allegation false but that she had always been a good neighbour).

The Council reviewed its handling of the matter in May 2005. By this time the neighbour who had made the allegations had moved. The Council considered the evidence that Mrs A had provided and withdrew the case.

The council’s response to the complaint

The Council initially indicated that although there were some areas where it might have handled matters more effectively, overall the approach taken was appropriate. It offered Mrs A an apology but nothing more.

During the Ombudsman’s investigation of the complaint, the Council told the Ombudsman that the officer investigating the complaints against Mrs A had contacted other residents who confirmed that they found Mrs A to be abusive. However, there was no evidence to support the Council’s claim. In its defence it said that, although it accepted that the failure to give Mrs A the opportunity to defend herself against the allegation was, with the benefit of hindsight, wrong, the nature of the complaints and the possibility of reprisals was a factor in the failure to follow procedures. The Council eventually offered to make a payment of £500.

The Ombudsman’s view

The Council’s failure to follow its own procedures led to an antisocial behaviour order being served on Mrs A. It carried out inadequate enquiries and failed to give Mrs A an opportunity to defend herself. The Ombudsman said:

“This is an abuse of power of nightmarish proportions. It should never be allowed to happen again. I call on the Council to review its practice and procedures in this important area of public administration.”

The Council made matters worse through its own defensive attitude to the complaint. The Ombudsman said that the Council’s grudging acceptance that Mrs A should receive some sort of redress came far too late and rubbed salt in the wound.

Outcome

The Council:

  • paid £2,000 to Mrs A and offered her a meeting with an appropriate senior officer to discuss her complaint; and
  • reviewed its practices and procedures in the administration of its antisocial behaviour responsibilities to ensure that similar failures would not recur.

Date Updated: 13/01/09