Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to concerns about anti-social behaviour. This is because it is unlikely we would find there was fault by the Council which caused a significant injustice to the person who complained.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council had not properly investigated or taken sufficient action in response to his complaints about anti-social behaviour (ASB) by children near his home.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely an investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint, and his comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of information from the Council about its complaint correspondence with Mr B.

Back to top

What I found

5. In October 2017 Mr B complained to the Council about children he said were misusing bike sheds and a green space in the communal grounds of the flats where he lives. Mr B said the children were damaging property and causing a noise nuisance.
6. An officer from the Council’s Community Safety service looked into the matter. In particular he contacted the developer who owns and maintains the land in question. The developer visited the site but found no cause to take action. The Council also said the officer mentioned the issue to the police, but they decided no intervention was required.
7. In January 2018, in response to Mr B’s continuing concerns, the officer said he would try to contact the owner again. Mr B sent a further email to the officer in January but he did not respond again.
8. In November 2018 Mr B complained to the Council about its lack of response and its failures to investigate or resolve the issues in his case.
9. In its initial complaint response the Council acknowledged it had not properly informed Mr B that it had closed his case in January. But it did not accept any fault on its part in other respects and suggested the owner was in a better position to deal with the issues Mr B had raised.
10. After Mr B escalated his complaint another Community Safety officer contacted him and visited the site. However the officer concluded the Council was unable to take action regarding the bike sheds and it was the owner’s responsibility to secure them. The officer also found that the damage to the green space was not at a level which required any intervention. In addition the officer said the Council would not be justified in taking action concerning children riding bikes in the area.
11. In its final response the Council said it had conducted another review of Mr B’s case. The Council acknowledged its powers to take action about ASB under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ASBCPA). But it concluded the conduct Mr B complained about did not meet the statutory legal tests for enforcement action.
12. The Council also pointed out that it had reviewed its ASB records and checked further with the police but found there was no additional evidence or other reports about nuisance to indicate ASB was impacting on the community in Mr B’s area.
13. Mr B was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He said the Council had not properly investigated his complaints about ASB, particularly as to whether other residents had suffered nuisance. In any case Mr B felt there had been grounds for the Council to intervene, at least informally, in view of the criminal damage in question. In particular he said the Council should have made contact with the children’s parents to raise issues about the children’s behaviour.

Back to top

Analysis

14. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide how to deal with alleged ASB. That is a matter for the professional judgement of Council officers. Our role is to consider if there is fault in the way the Council handles an ASB case which has caused a significant injustice to the person complaining. We have no power to question the merits of any decision made by the Council which has not been affected by fault.
15. However I do not see there is sign of fault by the Council which has caused Mr B a significant injustice to warrant us starting an investigation of his particular complaint.
16. Mr B complained the Council did not carry out sufficient investigations into the alleged ASB in his case. In particular he felt officers should have met with him, visited the site at an earlier stage, and gone further in finding out if other residents were being affected.
17. It appears the first officer who dealt with Mr B’s case gathered information from him by email and discussed matters with the police but decided on that basis there were no grounds to take any action other than liaising informally with the landowner.
18. The second officer visited the site and corresponded with Mr B the following year but reached much the same conclusions as the first officer. This view was confirmed in the Council’s final complaint response after a further reconsideration of the evidence.
19. Given the Council has significant discretion about how it responds to ASB complaints and uses its investigative resources, I am not convinced we could fault it for the steps it took to look into Mr B’s case. In particular it seems to me it was appropriate for the Council to have contacted the landowner as they were responsible for maintaining the patch of land and bike sheds in question.
20. I am also not convinced we could reasonably suggest the Council should necessarily have gone further with its investigations, or that the outcome for Mr B would have been any different if it had.
21. The ASBCP gives councils a range of discretionary powers to take enforcement action in response to ASB. The Government’s statutory guidance in this respect emphasises ‘the importance of ensuring that the powers are used appropriately to provide a proportionate response to the specific behaviour that is causing harm or nuisance without impacting adversely on behaviour which is neither unlawful nor anti-social.’
22. In the circumstances, and in view of the Council’s findings in Mr B’s case, I am also not convinced we would have grounds to fault it for deciding that it would not be proportionate to take any enforcement action regarding ASB.
23. The statutory guidance suggests ‘early intervention, especially through informal approaches, may often be all that is necessary to stop incidents of ASB.’ Mr B feels strongly the Council should have done this in his case by contacting the children’s parents.
24. But the guidance also goes on to say that ‘Frontline professionals will be best placed to decide when and how to use these approaches’. The Council’s officers evidently took the view there was insufficient evidence of ASB to trigger the informal action Mr B wanted. From the information provided, I do not see we would find grounds to question the officers’ professional judgement about this matter because of any fault in the way they reached this view.
25. Mr B said the Council had failed to interpret and implement the ASBCPA and associated guidance correctly and knowingly gave false information about its powers under Act. But I am not convinced we would have grounds to fault it in this regard.
26. In particular I do not see that the Council explicitly said it had no powers to take action under the ASBCPA in respect of private land, as Mr B suggests. In addition the Council clearly acknowledged its powers under the Act in its final complaint response to Mr B.
27. It is clear there was some fault by the Council because of its failure to respond to Mr B’s further email contact in January 2018, and in not confirming at the time that it was no longer pursuing an investigation in his case.
28. But I am not convinced any fault in this respect has caused Mr B an injustice to warrant us investigating this part of his complaint.
29. In particular I note the Council subsequently acknowledged this fault on its part and said it would raise this matter with the ASB team.
30. In addition, although I can see the lack of a response from the Council would have caused Mr B some uncertainty about what it was doing after January 2018, I am not convinced its failure to contact him had any material impact on the outcome of his ASB case.
31. In particular, I suggest Mr B would still have proceeded with his complaint to the Council had he known earlier that it had closed his case. But I see no reason to suggest the Council would have reached a different view about the ASB if it had carried out a second investigation sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

32. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his concerns regarding anti-social behaviour. This is because there is no sign that any fault by the Council concerning this matter caused Mr B an injustice to warrant our involvement.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman