Summary: Mrs D complains the Council will not act to prevent problems she experiences which she says result from anti-social or criminal behaviour. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision there is no service it can offer Mrs D at the current time.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called ‘Mrs D’, says the Council has failed, over many years, to tackle problems with anti-social behaviour. Mrs D says she experiences frequent damage to her property and garden. This includes damage to items in the home, external doors and items in the garden such as plants and furniture. Mrs D also reports finding rubbish and dog waste in her garden. Mrs D believes the Council itself is responsible for some of these incidents acting in conspiracy with the local police force and neighbours. Mrs D specifically accuses neighbours of making excessive noise to stop her using her garden, verbally abusing her and throwing objects at her house and garden. Mrs D believes their behaviour racially motivated saying her neighbours have wanted her to move away from her house for many years.
2. Mrs D says because the Council and other agencies have not acted in response to reports the incidents continue. She says these cause both her and her sister who lives with her unnecessary distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the Council has responded to the most recent contacts it has received from Mrs D made in 2017 and 2018. For reasons explained at the end of this decision I have not investigated any earlier events described by Mrs D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mrs D’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and several bundles of supporting information. These included letters to this office, letters to and from the Council and correspondence from the police and other third parties, including medical professionals. I also spoke to Mrs D to confirm my understanding of her complaint.
• Information provided by the Council in reply to our written enquiries.
• A decision we reached in April 2015, where we decided not to investigate a similar complaint made by Mrs D.
• Relevant law and information on the Council’s website.
• Comments and further evidence provided by Mrs D in response to a draft decision statement setting out my thinking about her complaint (on which the Council also had opportunity to comment but advised that it had no comments to make).

Back to top

What I found

8. Mrs D reports that since 2005 she has been the target of vandalism, abuse and harassment. She has made multiple reports to the police of criminal damage to her home and garden; verbal abuse; deliberate littering and other forms of anti-social behaviour. In her various communications with this office Mrs D has provided the following in support of her complaint:

• A log of reports kept by the local police force, showing it has recorded around 50 incident reports and 20 crime reports made by Mrs D.
• Statements from a locksmith who has repaired two locks on her property which say on both occasions the locks appeared damaged from outside.
• Photographs showing objects in her garden including chicken bones, pork meat and dog faeces.
• Photographs also showing damage to a drainage downpipe, a garden box, plant pots and a recycling caddy bin.
• Various letters from medical practitioners confirming both Mrs D and her sister are in poor health. Included is a consultant psychiatrist’s report from 2012 which did not find Mrs D had any mental disorder.
• A December 2018 report from a local ‘plant clinic’ reporting on causes of damage to plants in her garden.
• A statement detailing crime reports made to the police in 2018. These included alleged damage to a patio door; reporting a ‘loud bang’ at 2:25am; damage to a fence; damage to a shed; damage to bird feeders; damage to trees; broken bricks to the front of the property; a confrontation with a neighbour in April 2018 over parking which Mrs D believed was racially motivated; damage to plant pots; damage to the garage door.
• A letter dated April 2019 from the company which maintains CCTV cameras in Mrs D’s garden. Mrs D also sent me other records relating to this company’s inspection and maintenance of the cameras.

9. Mrs D has around 10 CCTV cameras fitted on her property. These have not recorded any reported incidents or crimes. Mrs D believes someone tampers with the cameras to prevent recordings of the incidents she reports.
10. The Council recorded Mrs D contacting it in October 2017 reporting alleged damage to her home and garden by her neighbours. The Council wrote to Mrs D saying she should report such matters to the police.
11. Mrs D contacted us in October 2018 wanting to complain. We referred the complaint to the Council, asking it to respond to Mrs D. It arranged a meeting with Mrs D attended by an officer from its Community Safety Unit and a Police Community Support Officer.
12. The Council recorded that at the meeting Mrs D said she believed someone regularly broke into her house. She said they had broken her shower unit. Mrs D has repeated that claim in letters to me. Mrs D says intruders have broken other electrical items in the house, causing damage to her boiler and more recently snapped a candle in half. The Council and police officers could find no evidence of forced entry to Mrs D’s house and she could offer no explanation for how anyone could break in. In comments to me, Mrs D says that she now thinks it is the Council and police who are breaking into her house. She also says it is they who are entering her garden at night and tampering with her CCTV.
13. At the visit Mrs D also reported damage to her garden. She showed the officers a black sooty substance on an olive tree. The Council undertook research and later wrote to Mrs D saying it believed this was mould. I note the ‘plant clinic’ report also identified mould as the cause of damage to the olive tree.
14. In its letter to Mrs D the Council also said it had no open case to investigate any incidents of anti-social behaviour. It gave Mrs D details of how to pursue a complaint against the police if unhappy with its response to any specific reports of an incident or crime. The Council offered to liaise with the security company that has fitted and maintains Mrs D’s CCTV to ensure it works properly. Mrs D declined this suggestion.
15. I noted that in all the plant clinic looked at around 20 samples and photographs sent by Mrs D showing damage to plants. Mostly it found parasitic, fungi or mould damage caused damage to plants or else it could offer no opinion. But in two cases, that of damage to a dahlia and a rose bush, the clinic said it could not see any obvious cause for damage such as a parasite or mould. Therefore, it considered these cases unexplained.

My findings

16. My starting point for any investigation I undertake into how a council has responded to reports of anti-social behaviour is to consider what legal responsibility it has in this policy area. The Council is not an alternative police force. It is for the police to investigate alleged crimes such as criminal damage to property. I note that over many years Mrs D has mainly contacted the police to ask it to investigate the matters she reports and I consider that correct. Because mainly she reports alleged crimes which will be the police’s responsibility to investigate. I have no role in investigating complaints against the police.
17. The role of the Council is different. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on it to act to combat anti-social behaviour. It must therefore have a service that responds to reports of anti-social behaviour and consider what, if anything, it can do in response to contacts from residents. There is no ‘one size fits all’ response to such reports. Sometimes, the Council may offer a service. Examples would include asking its environmental health services to investigate specific complaints of nuisance noise. Or asking it housing services to tackle nuisance behaviour alleged against Council tenants. The Council also has the power to act against individuals or properties to prevent anti-social behaviour.
18. But sometimes, there will be no role for the Council. Or else it may decide not to offer a service having liaised with local police who have led enquiries into reports of such behaviour. There is no inherent fault in such a response.
19. In this case the Council has decided there is no service it can currently offer Mrs D. My role is to consider if there is any fault in this decision. As I explained above a decision is not taken with fault because someone disagrees with it. Instead a decision taken with fault is one not taken properly. For example, because the Council has not taken account of relevant factors or else given weight to something irrelevant.
20. In this case I find that some of what Mrs D reports may be indicative of anti-social behaviour. I note the confrontation Mrs D had with a neighbour in April 2018, reported to the police, which if not criminal in nature was distressing for her. I also note the plant clinic report identifying unexplained dying of plants. I also note the locksmith comments (although Mrs D drafted these and the locksmith only counter-signed them). All this evidence could be potentially suggestive of anti-social behaviour. I am also conscious Mrs D may make herself more vulnerable because she has reported so many allegations over the years, which could cause some resentment from her neighbours and lead to a reaction.
21. In these circumstances, the Council could not (and should not) close its mind to the possibility it might need to offer a service to Mrs D. But the record of its meeting and letter sent to Mrs D in November and December 2018 shows it did so. And I note here that in its consideration the Council also had to weigh any evidence which did not indicate Mrs D the victim of any anti-social behaviour.
22. I note here the Council has taken account of the police experience of investigating Mrs D’s reports. The police have clearly found a lack of evidence to support Mrs D’s allegations of crimes or that criminal behaviour causes all the events she reports. I note that despite Mrs D having multiple CCTV cameras these appear unable to pick up any of the damage to property she reports.
23. Mrs D also appears to advance sinister explanations for events that may have a more innocent explanation. For example, the damage to an olive tree appears clearly caused by mould and not the actions of a third party. Some of the pictures she has sent me of plant pots or the downpipe appear to show common wear and tear in such items, as I understand the police have suggested to her. I note the psychiatrist report Mrs D provided me said that she did not have a mental illness causing hallucinations or delusions. However, it speculated that even so Mrs D may have been exaggerating normal events and interpreting them in a way for which there was no evidence.
24. I also note that despite complaining about the Council Mrs D has rejected such help that it has recently offered. The Council reasonably offered to liaise on behalf of Mrs D to see if her CCTV cameras worked correctly but Mrs D declined this. She clearly believes the Council itself is also responsible for some of the incidents she reports. Despite there being no evidence at all for such a statement, Mrs D remains unshaking in that belief. So, I think it unlikely Mrs D would trust the Council to provide any service it offers. With no trust on her part it is hard to see what further involvement by the Council might achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

25. So, for the reasons set out above I have not upheld this complaint. I find no evidence of fault by the Council. I am therefore satisfied with its actions and have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

26. In her many submissions to the Ombudsman Mrs D has drawn attention to historic events. As I have explained above the Ombudsman does not usually investigate late complaints, so I have not investigated any specific events mentioned by Mrs D which pre-date her contact with the Council in October 2017.
27. There are no special reasons for me to exercise discretion here. Mrs D knew of our service before October 2017 as she has complained to us before. The decision we reached in April 2015 also considered complaints Mrs D had made about the Council to that point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman