Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to respond properly and take appropriate action in response to his reports of drug and substance abuse and anti-social behaviour at a neighbouring property. Mr C says both he and his house mate suffered unnecessary upset and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council failed to respond properly and take appropriate action in response to his reports of drug and substance abuse and anti-social behaviour at a neighbouring property. In particular, Mr C complains the Council:

• failed to follow its policy and procedures;
• failed to help and support a vulnerable adult;
• failed to provide victim support;
• failed to consider all the evidence and facts provided;
• providing misleading and incorrect information;
• made libellous comments; and
• attempted to pervert the course of justice and committed misconduct in public office.

2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault, both he and his house mate have suffered unnecessary upset and time and trouble in pursuing the matter. Mr C says his housemate is vulnerable and has suffered particular distress and a detrimental impact on his health.
3. I have investigated events from December 2017. The final section of this statement contains my reason(s) for not investigating the rest of the complaint relating to earlier events.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
6. 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)
7. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
8. Police and Crime Commissioners and the Mayor’s office for Policing and Crime (London) are bodies within jurisdiction but only their administrative actions are subject to investigation. Complaints about operational matters, such as how a crime was or was not investigated and about crime prevention are excluded from jurisdiction, as are complaints against individual police officers. Such complaints would need to be made to the relevant policing body or to the Independent Police Complaints Commissioner.
9. 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

10. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

11. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
3. conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
12. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced the Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) which had been introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 with six new powers:

• civil injunction
• criminal behaviour order
• community protection notice (CPN)
• public spaces protection order
• closure power
• dispersal power

13. The Act also introduced the community trigger which is a process that allows members of the community to ask the Community Safety Partnership to review its responses to complaints of anti-social behaviour. The collective actions and decisions of Community Safety Partnerships do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended).
14. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour.

Background

15. The Council has provided by way of background details of reports received from Mr C complaining about the smell from the daily use of cannabis at two neighbouring properties from June 2017. The police also contacted the Council as Mr C was making regular reports to them about the same issue.
16. The Council and police visited the neighbouring property but found no evidence of cannabis smell. The Council also visited other residents and left letters for those residents not at home to make contact if they were experiencing similar problems. The Council did not receive reports from any other residents of similar issues as a result. The Council visited the property again and arranged for its out of hours service to complete random checks during the evenings and weekends. These visits and checks did not identify any smell of cannabis despite some visits being made soon after the reports were received. The Council explained to Mr C at the end of July that it did not propose any further action as there was no evidence to support his reports.
17. Mr C complained to the Council in October and November. A Community Trigger was also raised in November.

Key events from December 2017 onwards

18. The Community Trigger meeting was held in December and found that appropriate investigations had been carried into Mr C’s reports which could not be substantiated. The meeting wrote to Mr C with this outcome and advised him of his right of appeal. The letter also offered to arrange a visit from Victim and Witness Support if Mr C wished to pursue this.
19. The Council also responded to Mr C’s complaints in December. The Council’s response provided a detailed explanation of its actions in response to Mr C’s reports. This letter repeated the offer of Victim and Witness Support.
20. The Council offered to install noise monitoring equipment at Mr C’s property in January 2018. Mr C subsequently decided he did not want the equipment installed. The Council wrote to Mr C to say it remained happy to install the equipment should he change his mind.
21. The police contacted the Council in March to say it had received reports from Mr C that his neighbour was poisoning him and his house mate through the use of air freshener and following them around the property (by being in rooms next to the rooms they were in due to the terraced nature of the properties). The police did not consider the reports amounted to harassment, stalking or intimidation as was being claimed.
22. The police issued a warning letter to Mr C and his house-mate in March that it would serve a CPN on them both for unnecessary use of the police service if their conduct did not stop immediately.
23. The Council advised Mr C there would be a second Community Trigger meeting at the end of March as he was making reports about new issues. The meeting found the new reports were unfounded and wrote to Mr C in April accordingly and to close both the case and accompanying Community Trigger. The letter also refers to Mr C’s rejection of noise monitoring and previous offers of Victim and Witness support. The letter set out Mr C’s right of appeal.
24. The meeting also made a referral about the information provided suggesting Mr C’s house mate was vulnerable. The Council visited Mr C’s housemate in September and October but were unable to complete an assessment.
25. A CPN warning letter was issued to Mr C’s house mate for unnecessary use of the police service in October 2018.
26. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council reviewed the actions previously taken to investigate Mr C’s reports in line with the Community Trigger process. The Council advised Mr C of the outcome and offered Victim and Witness support as well as making a referral to assess Mr C’s house mate for any help that was needed. Mr C and his house mate did not engage with the offers made. I have seen no other evidence of fault by the Council in relation to this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

28. I have not investigated events before December 2017 for the reason set out at paragraph 6 above. The Council signposted Mr C to the Ombudsman in December 2017 but he did not make a complaint until April 2019. I have used the discretion available to me to investigate events from December 2017.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman