Summary: We upheld part of Mr X’s complaint about how the Council responded to his concerns about anti-social behaviour. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action about the anti-social behaviour. However, there were faults in its communication with Mr X and it failed to tell him about the Community Trigger. The Council agreed to share information about the Community Trigger with Mr X. It will also update us on its progress towards promoting use of the Community Trigger.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not investigated his complaints about anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. He says he has reported incidents since 2016 but despite the police investigating the Council has not taken any action. Mr X says this has caused him distress and affected his family’s ability to enjoy living in the area. He would like the Council to investigate his concerns and take action against his neighbours.

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. 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 have considered the complaint made by Mr X and the documents he provided.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the documents it provided in response to my enquiries.
7. 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

Background

Anti-social behaviour

8. Councils have a duty to act to combat anti-social behaviour. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.
9. The statutory guidance which accompanies the Act sets out some early and informal interventions which may be used to address anti-social behaviour. This includes verbal and written warnings, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.
10. The Act also allows victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to request a formal review to decide whether further action can be taken. This is known as the ‘Community Trigger’. The review is multi-agency and its decisions are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Council procedure

11. The Council runs an anti-social behaviour unit within its community safety team with the police and fire brigade. The team’s anti-social behaviour complaint procedure says it will only investigate reports of incidents that occurred in the previous four weeks. If there is evidence the behaviour forms part of a wider pattern, the team may consider incidents which occurred in the previous six months.
12. The team does not investigate incidents when the primary responsibility for investigating is held by another agency. For example, the police investigate reports of criminal behaviour and hate incidents. The relevant housing association will investigate alleged breaches of a tenancy agreement.
13. The team will also not investigate when:
• the incident does not meet the definition of anti-social behaviour;
• there is not enough evidence to take action; or
• it is not in the public interest to pursue the matter.
14. The procedure does not refer to the Community Trigger. This is in a separate policy which says when an individual has reported three or more similar incidents of anti-social behaviour in the previous six months, or reported one hate incident or crime, they can ask for a review of how authorities have dealt with their case. The Council is the point of contact to ask for a review.
15. A panel will then consider the request and decide if it meets the threshold for review. If it meets the threshold, the panel can review the case and make recommendations to the authorities involved.

What happened

16. Mr X made several complaints about anti-social behaviour from his neighbours in 2016. The Council contacted other residents, made enquiries with the local housing provider, arranged for extra patrols by the police and for its youth outreach team to visit the area. There were no other reports of anti-social behaviour at the time.
17. In April 2017, Mr X reported an incident of anti-social behaviour to the police. He later discussed this with his children’s social worker, who recommended he contact the police to follow up on his report. In June, the police spoke with the social worker and said there was no clear evidence of a crime being committed. Shortly afterwards Mr X reported another incident of anti-social behaviour from one of his neighbours to the police. In December, a social worker offered to speak to the housing association and community support about ongoing reports of anti-social behaviour, but Mr X and his wife declined.
18. Mr X complained to the police about how they handled his reports about anti-social behaviour in June 2017. The complaint was not upheld.
19. In April 2018, Mr X wrote to the Council raising concerns about anti-social behaviour from a neighbour over several years. The Council said it had no record of reports to it or to the police about the matter. It said it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter further. It did not tell Mr X how to challenge its decision using the Community Trigger.
20. Mr X said the police had a long history of communication with him and asked the Council to review its decision not to investigate his concerns about anti-social behaviour. The Council replied it had spoken to the police, who had already investigated and reviewed the concerns Mr X was raising. It referred to the Council’s policy of not duplicating effort when an incident had already been investigated by another organisation. It advised Mr X to report any recent incidents with his neighbour to the police.
21. Mr X complained to the Council. He said it should have investigated his reports of anti-social behaviour in 2016. The Council said it had reviewed the actions taken in 2016 and was satisfied the anti-social behaviour unit had dealt with the concerns appropriately. It said as the matters were more than 12 months old the Council would not investigate them under its complaint procedure. It directed Mr X to the Ombudsman.
22. From September, Mr X began contacting his MP who wrote to the Council about its lack of action in dealing with his reports of anti-social behaviour. Despite several letters, the Council did not respond to Mr X’s MP.
23. In November, Mr X attended a public meeting of the Safer Hartlepool Partnership to raise his concerns about the way the Council was handling reports of anti-social behaviour. The chair said the issues would be investigated immediately following the meeting. Council officers met at the end of January to discuss Mr X’s concerns. The police were invited but could not attend. The Council agreed to write to Mr X responding to the concerns he had raised.
24. The Council wrote to Mr X in February 2019. It said this was a response to his complaint, as he had recently contacted the Ombudsman. It gave a summary of the actions it took in 2016 and said recent reports of anti-social behaviour related to past matters which the Council and the police had already dealt with. It said Mr X had not presented any new information to the Council to justify it taking further action. The Council directed Mr X back to the Ombudsman if he was unhappy.
25. In March 2019, Mr X reported a new incident of anti-social behaviour to the Council. He had already reported it to the police and housing association.
26. Mr X contacted the Council in July, seeking an update on complaints he had made to the police. Officers advised him to contact the police directly.
27. Mr X continued to contact various officers and councillors to raise concerns. He made a further complaint to the police about its handling of his concerns. The police later confirmed it was satisfied it had handled his concerns reasonably and proportionately and it would not take further action.
28. In October, the Council wrote to Mr X again. It reiterated its previous position and advised Mr X to direct any new concerns about anti-social behaviour to a single officer who would act as his point of contact.

Analysis

29. I cannot question the Council’s decision not to take further action in response to Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. Mr X had reported all the incidents to the police. According to the Council’s policy, it does not investigate incidents when the primary responsibility for investigating is held by another agency. There was no fault in how the Council decided not to carry out further investigations and so I cannot question the merits of its decision.
30. However, there is no evidence the Council told Mr X about the Community Trigger. Mr X felt he had not had a satisfactory response to his complaints about anti-social behaviour, some of which were recent. I cannot say that Mr X’s case would have met the threshold for review, as only the panel could decide this. But the Council was at fault for not telling him about the process when it told him it would not be taking action.
31. In response to my enquiries the Council said it publicised the Community Trigger when it first launched in 2014 and publishes information on its website. However, given Mr X’s vulnerabilities it is unclear how he could have accessed this information unless the Council told him about it. The Council has only received one application for a case review since the Community Trigger launched in 2014, suggesting the process may not be well publicised or understood.
32. At recent meetings of the Safer Hartlepool Partnership, the Council and other agencies recognised there was a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Community Trigger among their staff and residents. The Council has developed an action plan which includes further promotion of the Community Trigger and delivering training to councillors about the criteria for and potential use of the Community Trigger.
33. The Council says the letter it sent to Mr X in February 2019 was intended to address the concerns he raised at the Safer Hartlepool Partnership meeting, the letters sent by his MP, and his contact with other Council officers, as well as the complaint he had made to the Ombudsman. But it did not tell him this in the letter and this was fault. Mr X was left uncertain about whether all his communications had been considered as part of this response.
34. Mr X raised concerns about the response from a councillor after he shared his family’s experience at a public meeting in September 2019. I have reviewed the councillor’s correspondence and do not find fault. Given I have not found fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action to investigate Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour, it is unlikely further intervention from the councillor would have led to a different outcome.
35. Mr X told me one of the alleged perpetrators of anti-social behaviour worked for the Council and this was one reason it was not taking any action. I have seen no evidence to support this claim.

Agreed action

36. Within four weeks of this decision the Council will send Mr X information about the Community Trigger for future reference.
37. Within three months of this decision the Council will provide the Ombudsman with an update on its progress towards the action plan referred to in paragraph 32.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I upheld part of this complaint. While there was no fault in the Council’s decision making about Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour, there were faults in its communication. Mr X has been caused an injustice by the actions of the Council and it has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman