Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his complaints about antisocial behaviour taking place in his local area. He said this caused him stress and inconvenience. There was no fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to deal with the anti-social behaviour affecting his local area.
2. He said that the parking, littering and public urination issues in his area are causing him and other local residents significant distress. He said the Council is not working with the County Council and Police to resolve the problems.
3. Mr X said he was put to unnecessary time and trouble making complaints about the issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 the correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council. This included the Community Trigger case review action plan and Mr X’s complaint letter.
7. I wrote to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

8. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as behaviour that has caused or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person or a person’s residential premises. The Act gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour.
9. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a statutory duty on named partners to consider the reduction of crime and disorder when exercising their core functions. The named partners form Community Safety Partnerships. The Act also places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour. In doing so, councils may liaise with the Police and/or mediate with the public to investigate and address these reports.
10. Community Safety Partnerships allow various local organisations to work together to decide how to address complaints about anti-social behaviour. The Community Safety Partnership may decide to hold a Community Trigger meeting. A community trigger is a process that residents can use to ask for a review of the response to anti-social behaviour they have reported. A panel discussion is then held to review complaints about anti-social behaviour.
11. The Council is part of a Community Safety Partnership which includes representatives from the Police and County Council.
12. Where the Council agrees to hold a community trigger meeting, it must develop an action plan setting out how they intend to address the issues raised and write to the person concerned with the outcome.
13. If the person remains unhappy with the outcome of the trigger meeting, they can appeal to an independent Community Safety Partnership Chairperson.
14. The actions and decisions of Community Safety Partnerships are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

District and County Council

15. Traffic noise complaints, parking issues and obstructions come under the remit of the County Council.
16. This investigation relates to the actions of the District Council.

What happened

17. Mr X complained to the Council in May 2019 because he said people were littering, urinating in bushes, making noise and parking improperly near his home.
18. Mr X asked the Council to make public urination illegal, discuss the anti-social behaviour with the police and enforce parking restrictions in his area which would make overnight parking illegal. He also wanted the Council to move his area into a different constituency as he was unhappy with his local Councillor’s objection to the County Council implementing parking restrictions near his home.
19. A community safety officer visited Mr X to discuss the community trigger investigative process and see the area he was complaining about. They agreed to arrange a community trigger meeting. The Council kept Mr X updated on when the meeting was to be held and Mr X responded with pictures showing the parking issues he was complaining about.
20. The Council held a community trigger meeting with representatives from the County Council and the Police in July 2019 and considered Mr X’s complaints.
21. At the meeting, the following points were agreed:
• The County Council concluded there were no safety concerns which justified the parking restrictions Mr X had requested.
• The County Council confirmed it had begun the process of installing double yellow lines at the junction near Mr X’s home and subject to a consultation period it would look to complete this work in summer 2020.
• The County Council considered installing natural barriers outside Mr X’s home but decided this was not practically possible and residents should consider applying to the County Council for a license to plant hedges to reduce noise.
• The Police agreed to carry out general patrols of the area
• The District Council agreed it would monitor the area once a week, carry out litter patrols three times a week and install signage in the area.
22. The Council wrote to Mr X in July 2019 with details of the meeting and action plan. The community safety officer visited Mr X again to discuss the action plan shortly after this.
23. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response. He disagreed there were no safety concerns requiring parking restrictions and did not want to pay for a hedge to combat the noise in his area.
24. He said the three times a week litter patrols were not happening consistently, and people were still littering and urinating in his area. He remained unhappy his local Councillor had not supported the proposal for parking restrictions and had taken a long time to respond to his complaints or ignored them altogether.
25. Mr X referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2019 as he remained unhappy with the situation. He went on to refer his complaint regarding the parking issues to the County Council and is currently at Stage 2 of its complaint process.
26. The Council confirmed it contacted Mr X’s neighbours as part of the community trigger process and it has not received further noise or litter related complaints.
27. The Council provided a list of litter patrols carried out in Mr X’s area between May and July 2019. The list confirmed the litter patrols took place three times a week. It also installed signs which were removed/stolen. It has recently reinstated these. The Council has confirmed that the increased patrols have not uncovered evidence of specific instances of public urination.

Findings

28. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not respond to his complaints about litter, public urination and noise appropriately. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints by holding a community trigger meeting and creating an action plan to address them. The meeting identified that the noise complaint was a County Council issue and Mr X could apply for a licence to install a hedge to combat the noise issues he experienced. Mr X can consider complaining to the County Council if he remains unhappy with this part of his complaint.
29. The Council has confirmed it carried out increased litter patrols three times a week and surveyed the local area for anti-social behaviour on a weekly basis.
    The evidence shows the Council wrote to Mr X with the details of its action plan and kept him updated on its progress through letters and visits to his home. The Council acted in line with statutory guidance. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
30. Mr X has complained about the County Council’s decision to reject proposed parking restrictions in his area. This issue is not within the remit of the District Council. Mr X has exercised his right to complain to the County Council. It is open to Mr X to raise a separate complaint to the Ombudsman once he has exhausted the complaints process if he is unhappy with the County Council’s final response.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. I have therefore completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman