Summary: Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with anti-social behaviour on his road caused by fly-tipping, drug dealing and late-night noise. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault by the Council in its response to Mr X’s reports. Also, decisions around the deployment of a CCTV camera and where to target most of its street cleaning resources are ones it is entitled to take having considered the alternatives.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council has dealt with anti-social behaviour on his road caused by fly-tipping, drug dealing and late-night noise. He says he suffers from anxiety and the Council’s lack of support is adding to his condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the documents he sent the Ombudsman. I wrote to the Council with enquiries and reviewed the material it sent in response.
6. I asked the Council to provide records dating from May 2017 onwards. Given Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2018, this means I have investigated events which took place from than 12 months before Mr X’s complaint. However, I am satisfied there is good reason and enough evidence available for me to decide whether the Council’s actions were fault during this time. Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s response over time. This means Mr X spent some time reporting incidents before resorting to the complaints process.
7. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X lives in a residential area and has been speaking to the Council for over two years about his concerns about anti-social behaviour and rubbish being fly tipped in his road. He says he has made lots of reports but feels the Council has failed to put in place long-term solutions to repeat problems.
9. The Council says Mr X made 11 reports between July 2017 and October 2018 in total relating to rubbish. Three related to missed bin collections, three reported fly-tipping on his road, two reported fly-tipping elsewhere nearby and there were also reports about vermin on the pavement and a rude recycling lorry driver. The Council has explained how it dealt with each of these reports. Most went to its street cleaning team to resolve.
10. With respect to a wider response to fly tipping, the Council says it accepts there is an issue with street cleanliness in the part of its area where Mr X lives. However, within that identified area it believes there are areas of greater need and so, as part of project started in October 2018, it has chosen to target its resources there. It says this is because those areas have a mix of houses and businesses and more people passing through.
11. Mr X says it is difficult to report fly tipping on the Council’s website as it does not recognise his road. He says the Council has told him to log reports against a nearby road but worries this means it is not getting a proper picture of the issues on his own road. The Council says the issue with the website is because the application needs a postcode to link reports to. Mr X’s road has no postcode and so it does not come up. It says because it bought into an existing product it is unable to change it. However, it says the workaround it has suggested to Mr X is effective and it has made sure its contractor checks both roads if there is any doubt about where reported rubbish is. It also says Mr X can make reports by telephone.
12. Mr X also told the Ombudsman about his reports of anti-social behaviour. He says the failure to deal with it is causing him anxiety, as he feels people sitting in cars are dealing drugs and causing a noise nuisance which goes unchallenged.
13. The Council says anti-social behaviour is a matter for its Safer Communities Team. It explained it triages reports by risk assessing them. It finds most are low-level reports help it to build an intelligence picture but, without specifics about those involved, it cannot take further legal action. It provided details of nine reports made by Mr X between December 2017 and October 2018. Its records show it resolved some of these reports by making the police aware, as it considered they were within its remit. Others relating to fly tipping Mr X had already reported.
14. The Ombudsman asked the Council to provide some context about anti-social behaviour in Mr X’s road. It says it does not consider Mr X’s road is somewhere there have been regular issues. Only Mr X and one other resident have reported issues there during the time in question. It says police statistics show the council ward he lives in is 11th out of the 23 in its area for crime reports. It says noise nuisance laws only apply to ‘premises’ and do not extend to vehicles in the street.
15. Part of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s decision to withdraw a CCTV camera which it installed in his road after the local ward forum agreed to fund it. He says the CCTV camera worked, as the people loitering around cars did not come back having seen it. Once the Council removed the camera he says they returned. Mr X says the Council told him it had removed the camera because it captured no evidential footage of those causing problems.
16. The Council says each of its wards has a ‘ward forum’ made up of local councillors, which members of the public can attend. These forums exist to propose solutions to local problems, which the relevant departments then consider for suitability and legality. Ward forums have access to a £30,000 budget to achieve their aims.
17. In this case, Mr X’s local ward forum funded the temporary placement of a camera, subject to assessment of its impact after several weeks. The Council says during the deployment in Mr X’s road it received “several resident and police lead requests for the deployment of temporary CCTV across…” its area. Given the low level of crime detected it decided there was no ‘clearly identified pressing need’ for the camera to remain there and removed it.
18. The Council says it is happy to meet with Mr X to discuss any concerns he still has, his proposed solutions and how it can improve communication with him.

Back to top

Analysis

19. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to substitute my view of what a decision should be in place of the Council’s decision. This means a decision which relies on an officer’s professional judgement, and which is in line with national and local policy, will not change just because Mr X disagrees with it or feels it should do more. Instead, we have to consider whether there was fault in the process leading to the decision.
20. I have considered the different parts of Mr X’s complaint. The evidence I have seen about the Council's response to Mr X's individual reports does not suggest fault. It has assessed each report and decided on a suitable course of action. Ultimately, that action is a matter of judgement for the officers. There is no evidence of mishandled or ignored reports. The Council is right when it says the law on statutory noise nuisance does not extend the noise coming from vehicles in the street. It has also explained the reason why it has chosen to target its resources to deal with rubbish on the streets in areas other than Mr X’s road. The allocation of resources is a matter for the Council.
21. I have carefully considered whether the issue Mr X has with reporting incidents online meets the threshold for fault. I accept it does not work for residents in Mr X’s road, as it relies on the entry of a postcode. However, the Council has provided Mr X with a workaround. I do not think it is onerous and there are also other methods of reporting available. The Council says it has asked its contractor to take special care with reports received for the road neighbouring Mr X, in case it relates to his road instead. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the Council has taken suitable measures and therefore is not at fault.
22. Finally, I considered the Council’s decision to withdraw the CCTV camera from Mr X’s road. I certainly understand his point about the camera’s effectiveness seeming to cause its removal. However, the judgement about where it is best needed is a decision for the Council to take. It was always a temporary deployment subject to assessment of the result. The Council’s explanation for its withdrawal in the minutes of the local ward forum from February 2018. The Council said the camera itself was needed elsewhere and it is not for the Ombudsman to direct how the Council should use its resources.
23. I note the Council’s offer to meet Mr X to discuss his concerns and possible solutions is still open and I would encourage him to consider this as a way forward.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach to Mr X’s reports of fly tipping and anti-social behaviour.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman