Summary: The Council properly investigated concerns of anti-social behaviour. The Council failed to properly consider a complaint about its service; it will apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I will call Mr & Mrs C, say the Council failed to properly investigate their complaints of anti-social behaviour by their neighbour. The Council has lied about what the issues are, and not considered the concerns they raise. The Council delayed dealing with the complaint. Mr & Mrs C are upset the Council has not given them an explanation of why it lied, and why it did not respond in ten days. Mr & Mrs C have had time and trouble contacting the Council, the police, and their local councillors to try and get a resolution to their neighbour’s anti-social behaviour. They say they can’t use their garden because of worrying that something will be thrown over the fence, their quality of life has gone downhill, and the noise stresses their autistic son, yet the Council is doing nothing.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated events from August 2018 onwards. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr & Mrs C, and the Council. Including the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour policy and complaints policy. I shared a draft of this statement with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr & Mrs C say for many years their neighbours have caused them distress by noise coming through the walls of their semi-detached house, and by throwing items over the fence into their garden.
8. Anti-social behaviour is behaviour which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.
9. I have seen no evidence that Mr & Mrs C raised noise concerns with the Council during the period I am investigating. In August 2018 Mr & Mrs C complained to the Council that their neighbour had thrown a plastic pipe over the fence and into their garden. The Council visited Mr & Mrs C’s neighbour; whose son admitted he had done this. The neighbour’s son was seven years old at the time, the Council warned him of the consequences of his behaviour, but felt he had a limited understanding. The Council made referrals to other professionals who could work with the family; this would hopefully prevent future problems.
10. The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy has a section titled children and young people. This states in cases where perpetrators are under 18 years old, the Council will always seek to work in partnership with local services, in support of children and families, to achieve the best outcome for all parties.
11. The Council tried to telephone Mr & Mrs C several times but could not speak with them. The Council sent a letter confirming it had closed the anti-social behaviour investigation. It explained it could not use any anti-social behaviour powers against the child or the child’s mother, as the child is below the criminal age of responsibility. It explained it had taken other action, but could not explain what because it is personal to the neighbour.

Complaint

12. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will:
• Acknowledge stage 1 complaints, and provide a full response within ten working days. Once it completes the stage 1 complaint the customer can ask for a review by a Service Director if they remain dissatisfied.
• Acknowledge stage 2 complaints (the review). Provide a full response within 15 working days. Once a stage 2 is complete the Council will tell the customer of their options if they are still dissatisfied.
13. Mr & Mrs C say they complained on 12 July 2018. They say the Council’s response letter lied about the age of the child and the types of incidents. Mr & Mrs C say this letter is factually untrue as it refers to the anti-social behaviour involving a child of around ten years old when in fact the child is seven. Also, the letter says the events complained of are the child placing small stones or socks onto the fence, when in fact it is the child has thrown over larger items into their garden. The Council says there have been various instances, some where it has been as described in the letter of smaller items on the fence, and some where it has been as described by Mr & Mrs C of larger items over the fence.
14. Mr & Mrs C say they complained in August but did not receive a reply. By November they contacted their MP and then received the Council’s final reply, however it did not explain why the Council had lied.
15. The Council says it received a complaint from Mr & Mrs C on 3 August and responded on 10 August, so was in accordance with its policy. The letter of 10 August is from the Case Management Officer, it is an update about the anti-social behaviour investigation. It does not refer to the concerns Mr & Mrs C highlight in paragraph 13. It makes no reference to being a stage 1 complaint response, and does not tell Mr & Mrs C of their right of review at stage 2 if they remain unhappy. The Council now accepts it failed to reply at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
16. The Council says Mr & Mrs C asked for a stage 2 review on 15 November, and the Council responded within the published timescale. The Council explained Mr & Mrs C have reported many concerns, but because of the low-level nature of the incidents, and the child’s age, there is nothing the Council or police can do to take action under anti-social behaviour powers. The Council confirmed it had taken other action, and correctly referred Mr & Mrs C to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

17. The Council acted correctly in its investigation of Mr & Mrs C’s reports of anti-social behaviour, in accordance with its policy. It spoke with the alleged perpetrator, and made suitable referrals to try to prevent future issues. I have seen the action the Council took, but cannot disclose details to Mr & Mrs C because it is their neighbour’s personal data.
18. The Council failed to act in accordance with its complaint process. It did not reply to the letter of 3 August. Mr & Mrs C should not have had to involve their MP to illicit a response.
19. The Council did not answer Mr & Mrs C’s concern about the wording of its undated letter. It is possible that had it done so, their complaint to the Ombudsman might have been avoided.
20. As the Council’s letter is undated I do not know when it was sent. It refers to a letter from Mr & Mrs C of 12 July, and is possible it was written before their anti-social behaviour complaint of 2 August about the plastic pipe being thrown over the fence. The Council’s letter says “I am informed that previous incidents that have been investigated relate to similar circumstances in that it involves a small child of around 10 years of age, whom has placed small stones or socks onto the fence that adjoins your properties. Please bear in mind that in such circumstance of this kind, we will not be able to substantiate any offences and thus will not investigate further. We will investigate any future ASB [anti-social behaviour] as it arises.”
21. I do not find the Council at fault for referring to the child as “a small child of around 10 years of age”. I believe it reasonable to refer to a child of seven or eight as being around 10 years old, so do not agree with the assertion the Council lied about the child’s age. In any event, whether the child was seven or 10 would have no bearing on the Council’s decision making on how to proceed, so causes no real injustice to Mr & Mrs C.
22. The Council accepts there were instances where items were thrown over the fence, it says there were also instances where items were placed on the fence; Mr & Mrs C dispute this. I do not have evidence of the reports the Council received; it is not proportionate to obtain these. I accept that Mr & Mrs C feel the undated letter downplays the behaviour they were experiencing, but I do not find the Council were deliberately trying to downplay events. The wording of the Council’s letter does not change the outcome, the Council properly investigated the allegations of anti-social behaviour and took suitable action. Mr & Mrs C feel the Council has done nothing about the issues, and suggest it should have contacted social services or the neighbour’s landlord. The reason Mr & Mrs C feel this way is because information cannot be shared with them. I have seen the actions the Council took, and confirm it made appropriate referrals in accordance with its anti-social behaviour policy.
23. I understand the neighbour has moved, which will relieve the anti-social behaviour worries for Mr & Mrs C.

Agreed action

24. The Council will apologise to Mr & Mrs C for failing to reply to the complaint of 3 August. It will also apologise for failing to respond to the concern about the wording of the undated letter. The Council will identify what went wrong with its complaint handling and implement any identified improvements. The Council should complete these actions within one month from the Ombudsman’s final decision, and evidence its compliance.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation on the basis the agreed action is sufficient to acknowledge the impact of the identified failings.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

26. I did not investigate events before August 2018, they are late complaints as explained in paragraph three. Mr & Mrs C say there were unaware of the Ombudsman. We have existed since 1974, a google search would bring up our information, and there are links to our service on the Council’s website complaint pages. I do not consider these good grounds to exercise discretion to investigate late complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman