Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on or address threatening and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour who receives support from the Council’s Adult Social Care service. The Council was at fault for failing to consider using its anti-social behaviour powers, and for failing to properly record how it reached some of its decisions. The Council will apologise to Mr X for the avoidable frustration its fault caused, and remind staff about correct procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to act on or address threatening and anti-social behaviour from a neighbour who receives support from the Council’s Adult Social Care service.
2. Mr X said this has caused him and his family stress and impacted on their mental health. Mr X said he feels he is waiting for something more severe to happen before the Council will take his concerns seriously.
3. Mr X would like his neighbour taken into care.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr 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

Anti-social behaviour

9. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
10. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

11. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community's quality of life. A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
12. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a CPN. The council should decide how long after the written warning to wait before serving a CPN. A person can appeal a CPN in the magistrates' court within 21 days of receiving it if they disagree with the council’s decision.
13. In some instances, antisocial behaviour may cause a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. In such cases councils can serve both a CPN and an abatement notice on the perpetrator, if they consider it necessary.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. In July 2024 Mr X reported his neighbour, who I will call Mr A, regularly used drugs and caused noise nuisance.
16. Mr A has a support worker at the Council who planned to discuss the issues with Mr A at a meeting at the end of July.
17. A housing officer emailed Mr A’s support worker on 31 July 2024 asking for information as they wanted to inspect the home after reports from Mr X about its condition.
18. The support worker said they had no concerns about the condition of Mr A’s home. It was always neat and tidy and in a habitable condition.
19. The housing officer and support worker visited Mr A on 27 August 2024. They found the home well kept, in a good state of repair, and there was food in the fridge. Mr A denied the concerns Mr X raised and said there had been no altercations.
20. Mr X emailed the Council in September reporting Mr A was constantly fly-tipping.
21. An Environmental Health enforcement officer emailed Mr A’s support worker in September 2024 after Mr X reported Mr A dumping waste. They asked to discuss the matter before making a visit. They said this was not the first complaint about Mr A dumping waste.
22. Mr A’s support worker spoke to the Environmental Health enforcement officer. The enforcement officer intended to visit Mr A and serve a legal notice for fly tipping. After discussion, it was agreed Mr A’s support worker would discuss the concern raised by Mr X during their planned visit to Mr A at the end of September. The enforcement officer said they would not take further action if Mr A denied the offence but would issue a warning letter if they admitted it. They wanted to take Mr A’s circumstances into account when considering enforcement action.
23. Mr A’s support worker spoke with other professionals involved in Mr A’s care in October 2024. They said Mr A disputes the allegations of fly tipping and denies any issues with his neighbours or recent incidents.
24. Mr X emailed his local councillor on 18 October 2024 asking about a Community Protection Notice and logging a statutory nuisance complaint. He said the Council’s mental health, housing and social care services had not taken his neighbour’s behaviour seriously.
25. The local councillor took Mr X’s concerns to the Council.
26. Mr X emailed the Council on 18 October 2024 stating he reported fly tipping via the Council’s mobile application. He said Mr A was currently fly-tipping garden waste and he had video evidence clearly identifying them.
27. An Environmental Health officer asked if Mr X was available to visit him about the issue and to inspect the videos.
28. Mr X emailed the Council on 21 October 2024 asking it to urgently address his concerns about his neighbour’s ASB. Mr X said Mr A continued to destroy trees on Mr X's property in the last 48 hours, and then dumped the offcuts along surrounding streets. He said this was threatening, caused disturbance, and showed disregard for their safety. Mr X said his family did not feel safe living near Mr A and he asked the Council to properly assess Mr A’s mental health.
29. An Environmental Health officer emailed Mr X on 22 October 2024 following their visit. The officer said Mr A was known to the Council and there is a planned visit that week. They asked Mr X to save the video footage, and the officer would discuss possible next steps with their seniors.
30. Mr X emailed the Council on 28 October 2024. He said they experienced a repeat of Mr A’s criminal damage, trespassing, and disturbing behaviour over the weekend. Mr A cut what remained of Mr X’s trees. He said the Council’s social work team told him Mr A is under Council supervision, receiving help and treatment. He said the Council therefore needed to address the incidents.
31. The Environmental Health officer emailed Mr X again on 29 October asking him to send the video footage which he showed them of Mr A disposing of cuttings from Mr X’s trees. They said this was requested by Mr A’s social worker, who said they wanted to see it as previously there had been no evidence of Mr X’s reports.
32. Mr X sent the video footage to the officer. He also said Mr A’s social worker visited the previous week but did not ask to see the footage.
33. Mr X emailed the Council on 14 November 2024 asking for an update, and for the Council to outline the steps taken and the plan in place for his neighbour.
34. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 5 December 2024. It said professionals involved in Mr A’s care met to discuss Mr X’s concerns. The police confirmed there were no reports about Mr A in the last six months, and the Council’s Environmental Health service confirmed it would not press charges for cutting down Mr X’s trees or fly tipping. Mr A’s consultant said he was stable and compliant with treatment. The Council said Mr A managed their home well and there were no concerns.
35. The Council said Mr X should contact the police if he had concerns for his or his family’s safety. It said Mr A’s social worker would continue monthly monitoring visits and give support where necessary.

My investigation

36. Mr X told me Mr A’s behaviour has included criminal damage and trespass, where he enters and destroys trees and plants. The neighbour has also dumped rubbish and debris on the road. He also loiters around neighbouring homes, shouting and crying – causing harassment and distress.
37. Mr X said there was repeated criminal damage, trespass, fly-tipping, intimidation and noise between 2022 and 2024. There was then a period of calm where he believed Mr A was in custody. They returned in September 2025 and some of the behaviours resumed. This has included knocking on neighbours’ doors asking for food.
38. Mr X said he reported Mr A’s behaviour via the Council’s ASB portal and received a letter saying the neighbour was coping well and under regular supervision. However, Mr X knows from communication with the social worker that they could not access Mr A’s property for months as they refused entry.
39. Mr X told me he has logged over 100 issues on the ASB portal in the past three years covering drug use, theft, noise, fly-tipping, harassment, and criminal damage. The Council marked many of his reports as ‘resolved’ with no follow up.
40. Mr X considers the Council’s current management approach is not working, and there is a disconnect between the Council’s assessment and the reality of his neighbour’s everyday life. He considers there is a failure in Mr A’s care, and the Council should move the neighbour to more suitable accommodation where his behaviour can be properly managed.
41. The Council told me Mr A was on remand as of February 2025. It also told me what support it provides to Mr A. I cannot detail that support, or when the Council last assessed Mr A, as this is confidential.
42. The Council said Mr X made 28 reports about Mr A in 2024 (although some were duplicates), but it has not received complaints from any other neighbours. The Council did not discuss Mr X’s complaints with Mr A, and the fact Mr A was later on remand limited the need to do so.
43. The Council could not confirm the rationale for its decision not to act against Mr A over the alleged fly tipping. It said the officer who made the decision has left the Council and there is no evidence of the decision-making.
44. The Council also confirmed its ASB service did not consider using ASB powers against Mr X’s neighbour, and there is no ASB case file.

Analysis

45. While Mr X is correct the Council provides some supervision for Mr A, the full extent of the Council’s role is confidential, and I do not have permission to disclose the details. However, I did not find evidence of fault in terms of the supervision the Council is required to provide Mr A. While Mr A’s support worker could not gain access to see Mr A at times, they spoke with other professionals involved in Mr A’s care who had seen Mr A and who had discussed Mr X’s concerns with Mr A. On the evidence seen, Mr A was receiving the necessary support and the professionals working with him had no concerns in that regard.
46. The Council said Mr X made 28 requests in 2024 about Mr A’s behaviour. However, I have not seen any records about how the Council handled these requests, what investigations, if any, took place, or what the outcomes were.
47. Mr X’s reports related to housing issues, ASB, noise, and fly tipping.
48. A housing officer visited Mr A’s home along with his support worker. They found no issues with Mr A’s housing conditions, so this element of Mr X’s reports went no further. That was a suitable response, and the Council was not at fault.
49. An Environmental Health enforcement officer planned to visit Mr A over the alleged fly tipping. However, after speaking with Mr A’s support worker, it was agreed the support worker would discuss this with Mr A at one of their regular meetings. However, on the evidence seen, the support worker could not speak to Mr A to discuss this. Instead, the support worker spoke to other professionals involved with Mr A. They confirmed Mr A denied the fly tipping and other issues Mr X reported.
50. At a meeting of professionals involved with Mr A in November 2024, the Council’s Environmental Health enforcement officer confirmed they decided to take no further action over the alleged fly tipping.
51. Internal emails show officers did not intend to take enforcement action if Mr A denied the offence, and they wanted to take Mr A’s circumstances into account.
52. However, there was no investigation case file from Environmental Health and no clearly recorded decision or rationale. That was poor practice and amounts to fault. While the Council is entitled to decide not to take formal enforcement action, its decision and the reasons should be clearly recorded.
53. Mr X said he gave the Council video evidence proving Mr A was responsible for fly-tipping. I have seen emails confirming a Council officer saw Mr X’s video footage of Mr A fly-tipping, and confirming Mr X sent this footage to the Council. Unfortunately, the Council has no record of its assessment of the video footage, and I do not know whether the Council’s Environmental Health service took the footage into account when deciding not to prosecute Mr A. That was fault.
54. Since the Council cannot show that it considered all relevant evidence when reaching its decision not to prosecute Mr A over alleged fly-tipping, I consider its decision to be flawed.
55. The Council’s failure to show it properly considered Mr X’s video footage caused him avoidable frustration.
56. It is not for the Ombudsman to tell the Council when it should prosecute someone for fly-tipping. However, as the Council cannot show it properly considered all relevant evidence, it should reconsider its decision.
57. I have not seen evidence the Council carried out further investigation into the ASB issues Mr X reported, such as drug use, trespass, and property damage. While I appreciate the police considered the property damage was a civil matter, that does not mean the Council could not consider whether Mr A’s behaviour amounts to ASB. The Council’s website lists behaviour such as nuisance, harassment, drug related activities, and environmental crimes as examples of ASB. The Council accepts it did not consider using its ASB powers. Its failure to do so was fault.
58. The Council’s failure to consider its ASB powers caused Mr X avoidable frustration at what was already a distressing time.
59. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to tell the Council when it should or must use its ASB powers. And I cannot say what impact this may have had on Mr A’s behaviour. But the Council should have considered whether it would be appropriate to use such powers in this case, and it should have recorded its decision and confirmed this to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

60. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for not properly considering its ASB powers when responding to reports about Mr A’s behaviour, and commit to carry out appropriate investigations if Mr X reports future incidents of ASB involving Mr A.
• Apologise to Mr X for not demonstrating it considered his video footage when deciding not to prosecute Mr A over alleged fly-tipping. If Mr X still has the video footage, the Council will review this and reconsider its decision.
• Remind staff in its ASB service to properly consider whether the Council should use its ASB powers, record any decisions made, and confirm the outcome to complainants.
• Remind staff in its Environmental Health service to properly record all investigations and decisions, and ensure video footage is properly assessed and documented.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

62. I found the Council was at fault for failing to consider using its anti-social behaviour powers, and for failing to properly record how it reached some of its decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman