Summary: Mr Y complained the Council has failed to act on reports of anti-social behaviour caused by his neighbour. The anti-social behaviour includes people leaving tree debris on verges, use of false road signs and people parking cars to partially block the road, causing a hazard. We have found the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to act on reports of anti-social behaviour caused by his neighbour. The anti-social behaviour includes people leaving tree debris on verges, use of false road signs and people parking cars to partially block the road, causing a hazard.
2. Mr Y said the lack of action has led to the problems continuing, causing him and his elderly parents significant upset and inconvenience.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. A court considered the actions of Mr Y’s neighbour concerning Mr Y’s family’s property in April 2018. This investigation covers the period following this, from May 2018 to include those issues described above which the Council has had an opportunity to consider. I have explained why I have not investigated other parts of Mr Y’s complaint in paragraphs 27 and 28.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I reviewed relevant information provided by Mr Y and the Council. The Council and Mr Y had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It may include verbal and physical threats and harassment. (Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
11. Councils have a duty to act to deal with ASB and will work with partners, such as the police, to tackle it. (Section 17, Crime and Disorder Act 1998).
12. A council will usually try to deal with ASB informally but if necessary, it can use enforcement powers. Councils should tell the person reporting ASB what action it is taking to deal with it.
13. The Council’s policy says first it will gather information about the reported ASB. If necessary, it will act to resolve issues, such as encouraging communication or referring the report to a specialist agency. If the ASB persists the Council can refer the matter to a multi-agency ASB risk assessment conference (ASBRAC).
14. If necessary, the Council or another suitable body, can take further action such as sending warning letters or making an Acceptable Behaviour Contract with a perpetrator to stop the ASB.
15. The Council’s policy for highways says that false road signs put up by residents are not allowed and will be removed. The policy says any obstructions will be considered for removal based on the most urgent safety need.

What happened

16. Mr Y said he and his family have experienced his neighbour’s ASB regularly for several years.
17. Mr Y made a complaint to the Council anonymously in February 2019 about logs which had been left piled up on the verge outside his home. He told the Council the logs could become dangerous if they fell into the road. The Council’s highways team visited what they thought was the correct site but could not find the logs complained of. The Council closed Mr Y’s anonymous complaint without further action.
18. Mr Y then raised the same complaint with the Council by phone a few days later. The Council’s records state the caller “insisted on remaining anonymous”. The caller gave more detail about location to help locate the logs. The records show the Council visited the site in February. The Council records state its highways department found the logs and considered the risk caused by them to be small. It found the placements of the logs offered some protection to the eroded verge, so the Council decided not to remove the logs but that it would check the area in monthly visits.
19. Mr Y disagreed with the Council’s view and complained, in March to the Council about its response to his anonymous reports. The Council explained its assessment of the risk posed by the reported problem was low. Without further information, as the report was anonymous, it had not been able to locate the logs following the first report. It said this meant the second report was needed to gain enough information to consider the risk of the logs. The Council removed the logs Mr Y had reported shortly afterwards.
20. Mr Y asked for a further response from the Council to his complaint. He raised other issues caused by the same neighbour, including that his neighbour had been parking in a way which obstructed the road and had put up fake road signs on the road where Mr Y lived. He also told the Council that further logs had been placed on the verges.
21. The Council gave a further response in May 2019. It said no further reports under Mr Y’s name or address had been raised to say further tree debris had been left on the verge. However, it said its highways team would consider Mr Y’s report and periodically monitor the road for obstructions including logs, tree debris and any other hazards.
22. It then referred to the neighbour having retaliated according to Mr Y after the Council removed false signs from Mr Y’s road. Mr Y felt the neighbour had been told who had made the complaint. The Council said the report about the road signs was made anonymously, and consequently it could not have told the neighbour who had made the report. It had acted in line with its policy to remove the fake signage. It provided Mr Y with details of how to report further issues but did not uphold his complaint. Mr Y says he provided his details on some earlier reports made to the Council but says he began to make complaints anonymously to prevent reprisals from the neighbour.

Analysis

23. Although earlier reports may have been made in Mr Y’s name, the case state the reports made to the Council about the tree debris, logs and road signs were made anonymously. Where the reports were made anonymously, the Council was unable to contact the reporter for further information, either about the problems being experienced or to recognise a pattern of reporting about how alleged ASB was affecting Mr Y or his family. Without further details to suggest otherwise, the Council was not at fault for responding to each report individually. Where it was aware the reports were about a particular location it acted appropriately by investigating then monitoring the situation.
24. In response to the reports of tree debris and fake road signs the Council investigated including making site visits and where necessary organising for removal of the debris and signs within a timeframe it judged to be appropriate based on the risk posed. This was a proportionate response to the individual issues raised and followed the Council’s policies on signage and obstruction to the highway. I have therefore found no fault in the Council’s response to the reports made by Mr Y.
25. The Council has explained how Mr Y can report any further incidents of ASB to it. It has searched its records but has been unable to trace any records of reports from Mr Y or his address made since May 2018. It has appropriately considered this matter. Where Mr Y has suggested incidents of abusive behaviour and harassment the Council has correctly advised him to contact the local police. This shows the Council has considered Mr Y’s complaints and dealt with each issue in turn as appropriate. I have therefore found no fault in the Council’s response to Mr Y’s complaints about ASB in his area.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I complete this investigation to find the Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s response to other reports of alleged ASB. These include recent issues such as flooding from the neighbouring property, vermin, and a historical issue of the neighbour shouting at his elderly parents. As these complaints either happened more than 12 months before Mr Y brought his complaint to us, or the Council has not yet had the opportunity to deal with the issues, I have not investigated them.
28. Mr Y has also complained about the information provided by the Council to the Court action concerning his neighbour. However, as this involves matters which happened in court, I have not included investigated them.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman