Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s involvement in the community trigger process. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault. The Council has apologised but this did not adequately address the distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s involvement in the community trigger process, following her allegations of anti-social behaviour reported to her landlord. She says the Council failed to fulfil its duties and delayed in informing her of the outcome of the community trigger review.

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. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X. I made enquires of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided. I have written to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and invited their comments.
5. I gave Mrs X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered all the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

The Community Trigger

6. The Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 aims to ensure that there is a greater focus on the impact of anti-social behaviour on victims and their needs. It emphasises the importance of, “…ensuring that powers are used appropriately to provide a proportionate response to the specific behaviour that is causing harm or nuisance without impacting adversely on behaviour that is neither unlawful or anti-social.”
7. It says the Community Trigger is an important “safety net” in ensuring that victims voices are heard. It is important that victims can easily access information about how to apply for a formal review. Victims of persistent anti-social behaviour can ask for such a review where the locally defined threshold is met, in order to determine if further action can be taken.
8. When an ASB Case Review is requested, the relevant bodies must decide whether the threshold has been met and communicate this to the victim. The ASB Case Review procedure should clearly state the timescales in which the review will be undertaken. The threshold must be no higher than three qualifying complaints of anti-social behaviour in a six-month period. Once the threshold is met, the relevant bodies must undertake the review.
9. Relevant bodies should agree an appropriate ASB Case Review/community trigger threshold, having regard to:

• the nature of the anti-social behaviour experienced by victims in their area, and
• the working practices of the agencies involved.

10. Local authorities should use their risk assessment procedures as part of the decision on whether the threshold is met.
11. Where the victim is considered to be particularly vulnerable, the relevant bodies should consider whether additional practical and emotional support can be offered to the victim.
12. The Council must tell the complainant the outcome of the case review and any recommendations from that review.

The Council’s Policy

13. To qualify for the community trigger the person affected must have:

• reported the incident of anti-social behaviour to the Council, police or registered housing provider within one month of the alleged behaviour occurring;
• reported three separate incidents of anti-social behaviour within the last six months where no action has been taken as a result of the reports; and
• requested a community trigger within six months of the of the report of anti-social behaviour.

14. The Council’s “Reducing Victimisation Programme Board Policy” outlines the process the Council follows when dealing with community triggers, as follows:
1. When a trigger request is received, (By the victim, or person acting on behalf of the victim completing a submitting a Trigger referral form), agencies must decide whether the threshold has been met. The threshold decision will be made by the Partnership Sergeant (Police), Senior ASB specialist (Council) and Housing Manager ((Waltham Forest Housing). Legal advice will be provided by LBWF legal service. This decision will be made within 10 working days.
2. If the threshold is met, a case review will be undertaken by partner agencies to include sharing of information, reviewing actions already taken, and decide on additional actions if required. In Waltham Forest, the case review will be conducted by the Partnership Sergeant (Police), Senior ASB specialist (Council) and Housing Manager (Waltham Forest Housing) and any other key agency who have had dealings with the case. Legal advice will be provided where necessary by LBWF legal service. This review will take place within 15 working days of the decision being made.
3. If recommendations are made by the review panel, the legislation places a duty on a person who carries out public functions to have regard to those recommendations. This means they are not obliged to carry out the recommendations, but they should acknowledge them and may be challenged if they choose not to carry them out.
4. If the threshold for the community trigger is not met, the incident should be referred to the appropriate agency and dealt with as a report of anti-social behaviour.
5. Each victim has a right to the appeal the decisions made by the panel (regarding whether or not the threshold has been met – or with the decision made at the review stage0. For Waltham Forest, appeals will be considered by the Head of neighborhoods and Partnership, (Police Chief Inspector), Head of Neighbourhoods (LBWF) and Head of Housing Services (Waltham Forest Housing). Appeals will be heard within 15 working days of the appeal being received. The Outcome of the appeal will be communicated in writing.
6. The victim will be represented throughout the process by the Victim’s Champion, and there are no plans to invite the victim themselves, or their representatives to either the review process of any subsequent appeal.
7. If a victim still not happy with the outcome of the appeal, then they have a right to register a complaint by contacting the relevant agency and following their published complaints procedure.

Background

15. Mrs X’s property and her neighbour’s property are managed by a housing association. Mrs X has lived in her property since 2016. Mrs X’s husband has a diagnosis of aspergers syndrome, and their 13-year-old daughter is registered as partially sighted and has a diagnosis of epilepsy. Mrs X first reported issues of anti-social behaviour by her neighbour to the housing association in October 2017. The reports included verbal assault, physical assault, threats of violence, harassment, smell of drugs permeating her home, persistent noise nuisance and obstruction of a communal walkway.
16. The Council explained that the housing association was responsible for dealing with the anti-social behaviour reported by Mrs X, it does not oversee the housing association and has no powers to hold it to account for their tenancy management. The Council’s involvement was in relation to Mrs X raising the community trigger.

What happened in this case

17. On 9 July 2018 Mrs X submitted a community trigger request to the Council. She was unhappy with the housing association’s response to her reports of anti-social behaviour. On 19 July 2018 the Council wrote to Mrs X and advised her that the community trigger had been accepted and a full case review would be carried out involving key partners within 28 days.
18. On 26 July 2018, a case review meeting was held involving neighbourhood problem solving officer, partnership sergeant, community safety team manager and the housing association. The meeting concluded by identifying actions required by the housing association to address the anti-social behaviour.
19. On 8 August 2018, Mrs X contacted the Council, requesting an update on her case and a meeting to discuss the case further.
20. On 27 November 2018, Mrs X complained to the Council. She said that she had not received an outcome of the case review nor any recommendations from the review. On 27 December 2018, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure. The Council acknowledged that a formal response was not sent to Mrs X in accordance with the community trigger process. It said that Mrs X would receive this response by 11 January 2019. The Council also acknowledged that the neighbourhoods service team had not responded to her email of 8 August 2018. The Council apologised to Mrs X for the lack of communication and any frustration this caused her.
21. On 11 January 2019, the Council wrote to Mrs X with the outcome of the community trigger review. The Council said that community trigger review panel concluded that the housing association had taken all reasonable steps to reach a satisfactory resolution for all parties. The letter explained that the panel had made the following recommendations:

• That work is carried out to the rear garden fence to install a closing device;
• The front fence erected by the resident of no5 to be removed;
• The housing association should take reasonable steps to substantiate any

further complaints made by both parties in relation to ASB and excessive

noise.

The Council sent the letter on 11 January 2019 by second class post.

22. On 12 January 2019, Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaint process. Mrs X said that she had still not received the Council’s formal response of the outcomes and recommendations from the community trigger process. She said the poor management of the process by the Council had had “a seriously negative impact on [her] ASB case.
23. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint on 27 February 2019. The Council acknowledged that there had been a “very long delay in [Mrs X] receiving [her] community trigger review outcome”. The Council apologised for the distress this caused Mrs X. The Council also acknowledged that it had failed to respond to her email dated 8 August 2018. The Council apologised for this and recognised that Mrs X should have been kept updated on her case. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint that the anti-social behaviour was made worse by the poor communication from the Council.
24. Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome of the community trigger review and requested an appeal. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said that her appeal request had been considered by the neighbourhood service team, police and housing department. The Council said Mrs X’s request had not been upheld because:

• The actions taken by her landlord were appropriate;
• Her landlord had stated that it would follow up with an injunction due to noise disturbance, should Mrs X provide evidence in court;
• The back fence had been fixed as per the recommendation from the community trigger;
• All other issues mentioned by Mrs X had been dealt with under the stage two complaint.

The letter also said that legislation did not require the housing association to carry out any recommendations made, however the housing association is obliged to have regard to them.

Back to top

Analysis

Is there fault?

25. My role is to consider whether the Council fell short of acceptable administrative standards with regards to the community trigger process. In considering what happened, I have taken account of all the information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
26. The Council did not complete a risk assessment for how vulnerable Mrs X and her family were. It said the housing association did this. I have seen no evidence the Council asked the housing association about this or obtained a copy. This is fault, especially given the fact that the Council would have been aware that Mrs X and her family were deeply affected by repeated disturbances from their neighbours. I cannot say whether the Council would have reached a different outcome on the community trigger nor the recommendations made, but without evidence that it considered the individuals vulnerability, I cannot be satisfied that the Council properly considered this case.
27. The Council’s policy states that “communication with the victim is key throughout the process. This will be by the ASB & Hate Crime Victim’s Champion in the first instance, but all decisions made throughout the process will be followed up in writing to the victim, by the review panel”. Mrs X and her family were not provided with any support through the community trigger process. The victim champion failed to contact them.
28. The Council confirmed that it presented a verbal chronology of events at the case review meeting held on 26 July 2019. The Council does not have a copy of the minutes of the case review meeting held on 26 July 2018 and therefore cannot evidence what information it presented, why it concluded that the housing association had taken all reasonable steps to reach a satisfactory resolution for all parties and how it decided the recommendations. I find that the Council has not been able to evidence how and why it supported the decision of the panel.
29. The Council acknowledged that it did not respond to Mrs X’s email sent on 8 August 2018. The Council has already apologised for its poor communication. The Council’s failure to keep Mrs X informed of progress with her case is fault.
30. The Council has acknowledged there was a substantial delay in sending Mrs X the community trigger outcome letter. Mrs X should have received this by 8 August 2018, but the Council did not send it until 11 January 2019. This fault, however, I note that the housing association had contacted Mrs X and informed her of the recommendations that had been made by the panel.
31. It is Mrs X’s view that the delay in the Council writing to her with the outcome of the case review, worsened the familys’ anti-social behaviour experience. However, I do not find that the delay is likely to have had any material impact on any ongoing anti-social behaviour issues. I understand that the housing association was responsible for resolving the anti-social behaviour issues Mrs X was experiencing and had already communicated the recommendations of the panel to Mrs X.
32. Mrs X believes that the Council should have taken action against the housing association for failure to take action to resolve anti-social behaviour in accordance with their policies. The Council’s involvement in this case is in relation to Mrs X raising the community trigger. The role of the panel is to review the actions taken by the housing provider. If recommendations are made by the review panel, the legislation places a duty on a person who carries out public functions to have regard to those recommendations. This means they are not obliged to carry out the recommendations, but they should acknowledge them and may be challenged if they choose not to carry them out.

Is there injustice to be remedied?

33. I am not Mrs X and I have no direct knowledge of the behaviour of her neighbours. However, Mrs X's comments make clear how strongly and deeply the family have felt the effects of the neighbours’ behaviour. Mrs X also makes clear how dissatisfied she is with the way the Council handled the community trigger. I recognise the strong sense of injustice felt about what happened. And yet, the injustice I may consider is that caused by any Council fault I find. It is possible for fault neither to affect materially the positions Mrs X and her family find themselves in nor to be the cause of the significant injustice they experience.
34. I have found fault with the Council’s management of the case and failure to follow the community trigger process. The Council failed to assess the vulnerability of Mrs X and her family (see paragraph 27). I recognise that there is uncertainty here for Mrs X and her family. They cannot know if the Council would have reached a different view on their vulnerability if it had carried out a risk assessment.
35. The Council also failed to provide Mrs X and her family with victim support (see paragraph 28). Because of this Mrs X and her family were denied the opportunity to have their voice heard. The injustice to Mrs X and her family is that, they were not supported or represented throughout the process. There is further uncertainty here for Mrs X and her family as they cannot know what difference representation by the victim champion may have made to the Councils’ assessment and conclusion of their case.
36. I also found fault with the Council’s record keeping (see paragraph 29). The injustice to Mrs X is that she cannot know, how her case was considered by the Council and she cannot know, why the Council supported the decision of the panel.
37. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X for its poor communication and failure to keep her updated on the case (see paragraph 30) and for the delay writing to her with the outcome of the community trigger (see paragraph 31). Both caused Mrs X and injustice. She suffered frustration and uncertainty due to the delay and poor communication She was put to some inconvenient and time and trouble because she had to contact officers to find out if there had been any progress with her case and then subsequently make a complaint.
38. In response to the recommendations made in my draft decision the Council has confirmed that it has already reviewed the community trigger process and has implemented service improvements to ensure similar faults do not occur again. It has also confirmed that staff will receive annual refresher training. I am satisfied with this and have therefore removed the recommendation in this final decsion statement.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have found Mrs X and her family were caused the injustice of avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty arising from the Council’s faults, which concerned the management and handling of the community trigger process.
40. In recognition of the injustice to Mrs X, within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:

• Send a further written apology to Mrs X for the faults I have found;
• Pay Mrs X £250 in recognition of the injustice caused;

41. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman