Summary: Ms X complains the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Team failed to properly investigate her complaint of anti-social behaviour and harassment from her neighbours causing her distress. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant Ms X. She complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and harassment caused by neighbours, arranged a meeting to discuss her concerns and responded to her complaints about the matter. Ms X says she has been caused distress and left in an unsafe situation which has impacted onto her mental health. Ms X believes she has been racially discriminated against by the Council. And this has Impacted into her human rights to be treated equally and fairly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have read the documents submitted by Ms X including an audio recording of the meeting and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered information from the Council and the supporting documents it provided.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

6. 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.
7. Statutory Guidance says it is good practice to assess the risk of harm to the victim(s), and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is particularly important to identify the effect repeated incidents of reported anti-social behaviour on the victim(s), through the use of a continuous risk assessment. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers – Statutory guidance for frontline professionals (Updated 2022, p26-7)
8. LGSCO can investigate how councils respond to an ASB report and consider using their general powers to address ASB.

The Council’s ASB policy

9. The Council’s ASB policy in place at the time aimed to take a problem-solving approach to tackle ASB in a proportionate and reasonable manner. It will consider reports of ASB from residents and decide on the most appropriate course of action. It aims to actively work with local communities and partners to prevent incidents of ASB and provide peaceful and secure neighbourhoods. And will give clear advice and appropriate support to all residents to help deal with ASB.
10. The Council aims to resolve all cases of ASB with sustainable outcomes and will close cases of ASB in several circumstances. This includes when it concludes following investigation there is no ASB occurring.
11. The Council says it will apply its policy consistently and fairly and will not discriminate against anyone based on any relevant characteristics, including those set out in the Equalities Act 2010.

Human Rights

12. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to including:

• the right to life,
• freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
• liberty and security of person,
• a fair hearing,
• respect for private and family life,
• freedom of expression,
• freedom of religion,
• freedom from forced labour, and education.

13. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
14. Not all rights operate in the same way. Instead, they break down into three separate categories:

• Absolute rights: those which cannot be taken away under any circumstances.
• Limited rights: those that can be taken away in certain circumstances; and
• Qualified rights: those rights where interference may be justified to protect the rights of others or wider public interest. Note that any interference with a qualified right must be in accordance with the law; in pursuit of a legitimate aim; no more than necessary to achieve the intended objective; and must not be arbitrary or unfair.

15. Our remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But we can decide whether or not a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
16. In practical terms, councils will often be able to show they have complied with the Human Rights Act if they can show they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected; and there is a process for decisions to be challenged by a review or appeal.

Events leading to the complaint

17. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
18. Ms X complained to the Council’s ASB team in September 2022 about the actions and behaviour of her neighbours who she alleged were harassing her. Ms X also alleged she was a victim of hate crime. An ASB officer contacted Ms X discuss the complaint. Ms X said she had also reported the matter to the police who were investigating. The ASB officer established Ms X had adequate support in place and discussed mediation. Ms X declined to go to mediation with her neighbours. The ASB officer said as the police were investigating the Council would take no further action, monitor for two weeks and if no further contact would close the case.
19. The Council contacted the police about Ms X’s complaint. The police advised it found no evidence to support Ms X’s allegations of harassment. Ms X sent the Council further evidence but was advised to contact the Police.
20. A councillor complained on behalf of Ms X in December 2022 that the ASB team had not taken any action. The Council replied that Ms X’s original complaint did not meet the ASB criteria for allocation, and she refused mediation. But would allocate Ms X’s case to an ASB officer to interview her and view the evidence from her CCTV cameras.
21. The ASB officer arranged to interview Ms X at her home in January 2023. A police officer contacted the ASB officer and said having spoken to Ms X they would be attending the interview.
22. The interview with Ms X took place with the ASB officer, police officer and a councillor there to support Ms X. It was agreed:
• The police and ASB officer visit the neighbour to discuss the complaint and suggest a community resolution.
• The case to be monitored and mediation be considered as an option if necessary.
• Ms X to keep the councillor, Council and police updated of any further incidents.
23. Ms X thanked the ASB officer for the visit. The ASB officer updated Ms X about interviewing the neighbour. The officer advised that having viewed the CCTV footage they did not consider any ASB and/or harassment had taken place. The ASB officer raised concerns with Ms X about the positioning of her CCTV cameras. The ASB officer updated the councillor about progress and the lack of evidence to support Ms X’s allegations.
24. The ASB officer and Police interviewed the neighbour by telephone due to difficulties in arranging a meeting between all parties. The neighbour denied the allegations and declined mediation with Ms X.
25. The ASB officer contacted Ms X in February 2023 explaining the contact with the neighbour who had been advised not to contact her. The officer was satisfied Ms X was safe, the complaint discussed with her neighbour and the Council would be closing the case. Ms X said she would be complaining about the visit by the councillor, ASB officer and Police officer The ASB officer told Ms X how to complain, explained the actions taken and reasons why they had closed the case. The Council checked with mental health services regarding Ms X’s mental health due to concerns raised about the impact of the complaints Ms X made.
26. The Council confirms Ms X was being supported by an organisation which provides services to help victims of crimes and anti-social behaviour.
27. Ms X sent an email with an audio recording of the interview in January taken without permission of those present. Ms X also submitted a complaint to the Council in March 2023. Ms X complained:
• The ASB officer refused to see Ms X unless the Police attended, although Ms X had not wanted the Police at the meeting.
• The previous ASB officer had heard and viewed Ms X’s evidence and said it was harassment for the Police to deal with. Ms X sent a recording of the conversation to support her allegations.
• The officer and Police said they would visit her neighbour but had not done so.
• The Council had not taken her complaints seriously, officers had lied and misled her and had no compassion.
28. The ASB officer met with the Police in March 2023 who said they had no evidence to proceed with a hate crime by the neighbour against Ms X. The ASB officer intended to arrange a visit to tell Ms X of the decision.
29. The Council held a multi-agency meeting including the Police. The neighbour had withdrawn from mediation and a Good Neighbourhood Agreement (GNA) discussed. The GNA would be led by the Police who were also considering mediation between Ms X and her neighbour.
30. The Council allocated Ms X’s case to a new ASB officer as Ms X had sent in further information. The ASB officer liaised with the Police for updates as Ms X was abroad. The officer considered there was no evidence of ASB in Ms X’s information and videos. The officer said the Council would take no action but would support the Police if they intended to act such as the GNA. The Police advised they were now considering an Acceptable Behaviour Contract.
31. The ASB officer advised Ms X of their view. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response.
32. The Council replied to Ms X’s complaints in June 2023. The Council said the ASB officer did not invite the Police to the meeting but did contact them to see if aware of the matter. The Council said it would expect the officer to contact the Police to ensure Ms X’s complaints were considered by both the Police and Council for consistency. The officer was told there was an outstanding Police complaint. A Police officer later spoke to the ASB officer to say they had contacted Ms X and asked if they could attend the meeting. The Police officer said they would be attending the meeting. As the Police officer sought Ms X’s permission to attend it would have been open to Ms X to have declined the Police officer’s request.
33. The Council it noted Ms X’s allegation the ASB officer said her neighbour’s actions were harassment. But the officer’s notes of the meeting and Ms X’s recording did not support her allegation and did not refer to harassment. The Council advised that the officer and Police did try and see Ms X’s neighbour but eventually had a telephone call with them. Ms X had been advised of this by the ASB officer. The Council closed Ms X’s case as the ASB service did not consider it could take any further action.

34. The Police advised the Council in June 2023 it was taking no further action on Ms X’s case due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
35. In commenting on the draft decision Ms X supplied an audio recording of the meeting in January 2023 when the ASB officer, Police officer and councillor attended her property. The recording is not always audible but there is reference to the ASB officer referring to harassment.

My assessment

36. 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.
37. 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.
38. In this case the Council provided documents to show it has responded to and investigated Ms X’s complaints of ASB and harassment according to its procedures and practices. The Council spoke to Ms X’s neighbour and sought to arrange mediation which the neighbour declined. The Council does not consider there is evidence of ASB or harassment in this case.
39. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision there is no evidence of ASB or harassment, 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.
40. This is because officers considered the information and recordings made by Ms X and visited her property to investigate her allegations. This is according to the Council’s policy and practice and the requirements of the Stautory Guidance. It was appropriate action for the Council to take to establish whether there was ASB or harassment. Officers did not consider there was evidence of ASB or harassment from the information it obtained. 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.

41. The documents show the Council investigated Ms X’s complaints about the meeting in January 2023. I consider this was thorough and the evidence provided by the Council in response to my enquiries supports the conclusions reached regarding the decisions made and actions taken. Ms X’s audio recording does suggest that officers referred to harassment by Ms X’s neighbour. Ms X’s view that officers concluded it was harassment are not supported by the notes of the meeting. But as the recording is not always audible, and I was not present at the meeting I cannot draw any conclusions from the recording. The meeting will have been part of the fact-finding carried out by the Council in liaison with the Police. Once the Council reviewed all the information and contacted Ms X’s neighbour, it decided not to take any further action. This is a decision for the Council.
42. While Ms X may remain unhappy about the conversations at the meeting, I do not consider I can add anything or achieve a different outcome through further investigation into Ms X’s complaints about this matter.
43. There is no evidence the Council has discriminated against Ms X directly or indirectly, on the grounds of her race or any other grounds, either in the way it assessed her concerns or in the way it communicated with her. The evidence provided shows the Council has considered and acknowledged the impact of the concerns Ms X raised onto her regarding her mental health and to ensure she was receiving support from a specialist organisation.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has responded to and dealt with Ms X’s complaints of ASB and harassment from her neighbours.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman