Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consider his complaint of antisocial behaviour and failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his complaint. There is no fault bin how the Council considered the case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council failed to properly consider the antisocial behaviour he reported.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because Mr B disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Mr B 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

Legal and administrative background

6. Sections 104 and 105 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) introduced the community trigger. This was a means of giving victims and communities a say in how antisocial behaviour (ASB) is addressed. It is intended as a safety net for those who believe they have not had a satisfactory response to their complaints about antisocial behaviour. It allows for a review of the case where a locally determined threshold is met. The process for someone to escalate the community trigger for review if they are dissatisfied with the way it has been carried out is by referral to the Police and Crime Commissioner in Devon and Cornwall.
7. The Council’s community trigger guidance for ASB caseworkers (the guidance) says if someone has reported antisocial behaviour but no action has been taken they can report it under the community trigger. It says the reporting threshold is:
• three or more complaints relating to the same problem in the last six months to the Council, police or registered social landlord when no action has been taken; or
• where five complainants have made reports about the same problem in the past six months to the Council, police or registered social landlord and no action has been taken; or
• one incident of crime motivated by hate in the last six months and no action has been taken.
8. The guidance says the Act places a duty on the relevant bodies to respond to the victim at various points in the process. That includes:
• the decision as to whether or not the threshold is met;
• the outcome of the review; and
• any recommendations made as an outcome of the review.
9. The guidance says the single point of contact for victims is the police. When the victim contacts the police and requests use of the community trigger the police will take the details and email the information to the community trigger lead at the Council.
10. The community trigger lead must then decide whether the threshold has been met. Where the threshold is met the Council will arrange a case review involving the partner agencies. Those agencies will share information about the case and the review will decide what action has previously been taken. Where the threshold is not met the incident should be referred to the appropriate agency and dealt with as a report of antisocial behaviour.
11. The guidance says a customer can respond to the community trigger outcome by consenting to any proposed action plan or by asking for the case to be escalated to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Background

12. The police investigated a complaint from Mr B about antisocial behaviour and harassment by his neighbours under the Prevention of Harassment Act in 2016. The police considered sound recordings provided by Mr B. The police technical unit then sampled some of those recordings. The police found no evidence to corroborate Mr B’s allegations. Mr B continued to report antisocial behaviour and harassment and asked for a community trigger review in January 2018. Due to technical difficulties the Council did not receive the referral until April 2018. The Council asked Mr B for a sample of his sound recordings.
13. The Council arranged a community trigger panel, which took place in May 2018. Those present agreed the case did not meet the community trigger threshold but had agreed to meet to provide a multiagency response. The meeting recommended the police liaise with the mental health team and for the antisocial behaviour team to sample recent recordings.
14. The Council wrote to Mr B about the outcome of the meeting on 7 June. The Council told Mr B panel decided the police had followed the correct process in listening to a sample of Mr B’s recordings and sending them to its police technical department, none of which identified anything substantive on the recordings. The Council said it would like to listen to a sample of Mr B’s recordings.
15. Mr B met with Council officers and the police on 26 July to sample some recent recordings. The officers could not hear the voices Mr B described. The police agreed to analyse the samples again.
16. A Council officer and a police officer visited an audio processing unit to analyse the recordings in September 2018. During the visit Adobe Audition was used to amplify the sound so the officers could see the soundwaves. Officers identified the noise of seagulls, an owl and a motorbike or vehicle in the distance. Officers could also hear Mr B snoring, breathing, moving and talking on the recordings where officers believed he had turned the gain up as his voice was distorted which would explain the white noise. All present agreed as they could hear those sounds in the background they would be able to pick up the voices Mr B describes. None of those present identified any voices other than Mr B’s. Officers therefore decided they had exhausted all avenues and needed to engage Mr B with the mental health team to rule out ill health.
17. The Council wrote to Mr B to tell him about the outcome of its investigation and offered him support from the NHS Foundation Trust
18. In October 2018 the Council installed noise recording equipment in Mr B’s property for two weeks. Officers also listened to some of the recordings on Mr B’s laptop during the installation but could not hear the voices he described.
19. Council officers collected the noise monitoring equipment in November. During the visit Mr B played a recording where he said he could hear a male’s voice but the officers could only hear Mr B’s voice on the recording.
20. The Council wrote to Mr B on 23 November to tell him it had sampled the recordings but had not identified any voices. The Council closed the community trigger.
21. Mr B has since asked the Council to activate the community trigger again. The Council has declined as it considers the matter has been properly investigated.

Analysis

22. Mr B says the Council failed to properly consider the antisocial behaviour he reported. Mr B says he has provided the Council with a significant amount of recordings which show the antisocial behaviour and harassment he is experiencing. Mr B says the Council has not taken that into account and has instead relied on its own sound recording equipment. Mr B says that equipment measures noise nuisance rather than antisocial behaviour.
23. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council has properly investigated the concerns raised by Mr B. I say that because I am satisfied as part of its investigation the Council has undertaken the following actions:
• held a community trigger panel which involved Council officers and the police;
• Council officers and the police have listened to a sample of Mr B's recordings;
• Council officers and the police have visited a specialist audio processing organisation where they have listened to Mr B's recordings and had the sound amplified to aid its investigation;
• Council officers have installed sound equipment in Mr B’s property and listened to those recordings; and
• Council officers have met with Mr B to discuss his concerns.
24. Following those actions the Council has decided it has no evidence of antisocial behaviour or harassment either on its own recordings or on Mr B’s recordings. I recognise Mr B takes a different view. However, as the Council has reached its view properly I have no grounds on which I could criticise it. It is not the Ombudsman's role to comment on the merits of a Council decision reached without fault, as is the case here.
25. In reaching that view I have listened to the sample recordings Mr B has produced for the Ombudsman. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to say whether the Council should have reached a different decision. The Ombudsman’s role is to decide whether there is fault in the process by which the Council reached its decision. I have found no fault here. That is because I am satisfied the Council has listened to a sample of Mr B’s recordings. The Council has also had the sound recordings analysed, which has involved amplification of the sound and viewing the sound waves. The Council's view is the only voice heard on the recordings is Mr B's voice. As the Council has decided that after meeting with Mr B, listening to his recordings, making its own sound recordings and having Mr B’s recordings analysed there are no grounds for me to criticise it. That is the case no matter how much Mr B disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman