Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s actions in responding to complaints of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour, Mr C. We cannot identify fault in the way the Council has dealt with the situation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that Wolverhampton City Council (the Council) has failed to take effective action to deal with his neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. It is having a serious impact on his and his family’s quality of life.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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 considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

5. Mr B first contacted the Council in January 2018 to complain about his neighbour, Mr C, who was shouting loud verbal abuse in his garden and disturbing nearby residents. A Council officer (Officer Z) spoke to Mr B and visited Mr C to ask him to stop shouting. She then sent a letter to all the neighbouring properties in the street to find out if other residents had been disturbed by Mr C’s behaviour. The officer then followed up the letter with house-to-house enquiries. One other resident said they had heard the verbal abuse but did not wish to make a statement.
6. Mr B continued to complain about Mr C’s behaviour. In early April 2018 Officer Z said she was satisfied Mr C did not have any underlying mental health issues and would consider applying for a civil injunction if the problems continued. Mr B said, on 27 April, that Mr C had been quiet since 12 April 2018 and Officer Z asked Mr B to send her evidence of the shouting.
7. Mr B sent some DVDs but Officer Z did not receive these. She visited Mr C again. She collected the video footage from Mr B on 7 June 2018 and sent an updated statement to Mr B on 22 June 2018. She collected this from Mr B on 28 June 2018, took a statement from another witness and submitted the case to the legal team on 12 July 2018.
8. The court granted a full injunction against Mr C on 22 August 2018.
9. Mr B contacted the Council again on 7 November 2018 to say Mr C had started shouting again. Officer Z advised Mr B to gather further evidence to assess if Mr C had breached the terms of the injunction. She also wrote to Mr C to remind him of the terms of the injunction and the consequences of breaching it. Mr C was quiet from 14 November 2018 until 7 December 2018 when Mr B made a further complaint.
10. The Council then completed Mr B’s statement in support of a breach of injunction and sworn at court in December 2018. In early January 2019 the Council asked Mr B to update the statement to include all the incidents over the Christmas period. He did this and swore the statement in court.
11. Mr B complained of a further incident in early February 2019 and the Council confirmed a court date had been set later in February 2019. The court postponed this until March 2019 due to staff shortages. Mr C did not attend the new court date, so he was arrested and a new trial date set for May 2019. Mr C attended this and was given a suspended prison sentence.
12. Mr C began shouting again on 14 May 2019 and the Council asked Mr B to submit further evidence. At the same time the Council discussed ways of adding positive elements to the injunction so he could be assessed for any possible mental health issues. The legal team said this would be difficult to impose as a mental health professional would need to monitor Mr C’s attendance and pursue any breaches.
13. On 7 June 2019, after looking at further video evidence provided by Mr B, the Council concluded there was sufficient evidence that Mr C had breached his injunction. The legal process was followed again and the legal team submitted the evidence to court in June 2019.
14. While waiting for a court date, Officer Z visited Mr C again and urged him to visit his GP for assistance. The court set a date in August for a committal hearing. The Council served the paperwork on Mr C and again discussed his mental health. Mr B submitted a complaint about the length of time the process was taking.
15. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of July 2019, outlining the steps it had taken. It did not consider it had delayed at any point and it actions had been proportionate. It has successfully obtained an injunction and taken steps when the injunction was breached.
16. Mr C did not attend the court in August 2019. He was then arrested and sent to prison for six weeks. On his release he started shouting again.
17. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two and the Council responded on 18 September 2019 explaining the further steps it had taken and the limits to its legal powers to enforce Mr C to get medical help.
18. Officer Z visited Mr C again on 26 September 2019. She discussed his situation in more detail and gained his permission to contact his GP. Mr B continued to make complaints about shouting and Mr C continued to seek medical help throughout October.
19. On 12 November 2019 Officer Z contacted Mr B to explain the Council would not take further action against Mr C due to his mental health issues. It said Mr B need to allow some time for Mr C’s assessments to be completed and a support framework put in place.
20. Officer Z arranged a multi-agency professionals’ meeting including a solicitor from the legal team and the meeting concluded it would not be appropriate or proportionate to take further legal action against Mr C at this time. Officer Z has continued to monitor the situation, including regular liaison with the police.
21. When responding to my enquiries in March 2020, the Council said it had not received any further complaints since November 2019.
22. Mr B said in April 2020 that Mr C was continuing to shout, and the situation was severely affecting his mental health and family.

Analysis

23. I understand Mr B has been significantly affected by the behaviour of Mr C, over a prolonged period of time. However, I cannot identify any fault with the actions the Council has taken. It has responded promptly to the complaints, contacted both Mr B and Mr C on regular occasions, gathered evidence to take legal action, successfully obtained an injunction and pursued this to a prison sentence when the disturbance continued.
24. I cannot identify any delays by the Council in pursuing this action: there was a short delay in the Council receiving the first set of DVDs but there is no evidence that the non-receipt was due to fault by the Council. Similarly, the delays in the court action were due to the court postponing the date in March 2019 and taking a few weeks to set a date in June/July 2019.
25. Since Mr C’s mental health issues have been identified the Council has taken advice from other agencies and paused legal action to allow Mr C to obtain appropriate medical help. I cannot find fault with this approach.
26. I also note that until last month Mr B had not reported any further disturbance since November 2019. I am sorry to hear the situation has deteriorated again and can only suggest Mr B complains again to the Council and the Police if necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman