Summary: Mr C says the Council failed to do enough to control antisocial behaviour by youths on his road. He says this caused him injustice because he was distressed by the disturbance. He also says officers were rude to him on the phone when he complained. The Council was not at fault for its actions taken to limit antisocial behaviour. It took action but did not have to take the actions Mr C wanted. The Council accepts that some officers provided a poor service to Mr C. This was fault. However, the Council apologised so no further remedy is required.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr C, says the Council is at fault because:
1. It failed to take adequate action to control anti-social behaviour by young people on his street and
2. it failed to react adequately to his complaints about this inaction.
2. Mr C says this caused him injustice because the anti-social behaviour continued. He says the young people were abusive and threatening when confronted by residents. He says that neighbours have continued to confront him.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. Mr C says this anti-social behaviour began in 2017. The Ombudsman can normally only investigate complaints made within a year of the events complained of. I have looked at the events of 2017 as background but I have not investigated them with a view to finding fault.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. A late complaint is one made more than 12 months to complain after something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read the information Mr C sent to the Ombudsman and spoke to him on the phone.
9. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

10. Councils have a duty to respond to concerns about antisocial behaviour. Councils can respond in a range of ways including informal intervention and the use of powers under various acts of parliament.

What happened

Background – 2017

11. In August 2017, Mr C phoned the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Unit (ASBU) and said a group of children and youths were playing ball games in his street. He said this was causing danger to themselves and motorists. Mr C says other residents also contacted the Council about similar incidents.
12. As a result of these contacts, a Council officer told Mr C that the Council would write to local residents. It did so in late August 2017 using a template letter that it sends out in anti-social behaviour cases completed with the name of his road and other relevant details. (‘the template letter’).
13. Mr C did not like the wording of the letter which he felt did not address the fact that anti-social behaviour and ball games were taking place. He wrote to the then leader of the Council who arranged for a second letter with greater detail included to be sent out (‘the ‘second 2017 letter’). In late October 2017, Mr C wrote to the leader and thanked him.
14. Mr C had CCTV cameras installed around his property because of his concerns.

June 2019 onwards

15. Mr C says that, from June 2019 onwards, youths again began to play ballgames on his street. He again began to contact the Council and the police. He says that the police failed to respond. He says that, on one occasion, when he got through to the ASBU, a Council officer was rude to him and told him that officers had been told not to speak to him and then put down the phone. Officers told him, he says, that it was a matter for the police.
16. Mr C continued to press the Council for further action. In particular, he asked for a further letter to residents, similar to the one sent out in 2017. He lobbied his local councillors about this request. Council officers discussed his complaints with him but no action was taken.

First letter August 2019

17. In early August 2019, the Council provided Mr C’s councillors with the template letter which had been previously used in 2017. The councillors then arranged for this letter to be sent out in Mr C’s neighbourhood. However, it had not been modified so there were no details identifying the road or the areas where antisocial behaviour had occurred in it.
18. When Mr C received this letter, he contacted his councillors and told them he had expected them to send out a copy of the second 2017 letter which stated the case more clearly. Mr C says the councillors went back to the Council and later told him the Council had ignored them.
19. Mr C wrote to the Council in early August 2019. He raised his concerns with the way that the Council had dealt with his concerns about the antisocial behaviour in his street. In particular, he said that:
1. He believed the Council had been at fault for the fact that the wrong letter had been sent out; and
2. An officer had been rude to him on the phone.
20. The Council provided a lengthy response the next week. It said that an officer had provided Mr C’s local councillors with a template letter and had expected them to adapt it for their use. They had failed to do so which meant the letter confused those who received it.

Second letter September 2019

21. In early September 2019, the Deputy Leader of the Council sent a letter to residents of Mr C’s road. It discouraged the playing of football on Mr C’s street.
22. Mr C wrote to the Council asking who residents should contact in the event of further anti-social behaviour. He says he did not receive a response.
23. In early October 2019, Mr C made a formal complaint to the Council. He repeated many of the points from the August letter and added that the Council had refused to call the police for him when he had been unable to get through.
24. He also said that, in September 2019, as the ASBU had refused to take his calls, he called the Council’s main switchboard. He said he later received a call back from an officer who apologised saying it was not acceptable for the ASBU to refuse to take Mr C’s calls. Mr C says the officer said that it was ‘a lot of fuss over a few children playing football in the road’. The Council has spoken to the officer in question who says she would not have used these words.
25. Mr C says he received no acknowledgement or response. Three weeks later, he asked for an update. The Council sent him a holding response saying it would deal with his complaint shortly.
26. Two weeks after that, Mr C wrote to the leader of the Council expressing his concern about the wording of the letter that went out in the deputy leader’s name in September. He said that, in his view, the letter should have mentioned, as well as ball games, anti-social behaviour. He said the ASBU had refused to talk to residents about their concerns. He asked the leader to say who the residents should contact about their concerns in future. The Council wrote to him saying it hoped to respond to Mr C within two weeks.
27. In November 2019, Mr C received a response from the Council’s Regeneration and Neighbourhoods Department. In it, the Council said:
1. Mr C’s points had been answered in the August letter.
2. The Council could not find a copy of the second 2017 letter so it had probably been deleted from the Council’s systems.
28. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman in November 2019.

Was there fault causing injustice?

June 2019

29. Mr C believes the Council should have done more to address his concerns about ballgames in the street throughout the summer and autumn of 2019.
30. Mr C says that, while the Council did frequently respond to his calls, the police never did so. This is not a matter for the Ombudsman but it is clear that much of his frustration was with the police and not the Council.
31. Mr C does not believe the Council did enough. The Ombudsman cannot find fault on that basis. For us to find fault, there must be fault in the way a council decision was made. The Council investigated Mr C’s complaints and sent letters to residents. These actions were in line with Council policy and were a response to Mr C’s approaches.

First letter August 2019

32. Mr C says that the Council was at fault for keeping copies of letters it sent out in 2017 on its file when it claimed to have destroyed them. There is no evidence to support this claim. It seems that the Council kept a template letter on file which it used in 2017 and sent to Mr C’s local councillors for use in 2019. This is common practice and not fault.
33. Mr C also says the Council was at fault because the first letter sent out did not contain the details of Mr C’s street. The Council says, however, that any fault was not down to the Council but to Mr C’s local councillors who failed to customise a Council template to include the relevant details. On the evidence, this seems to be the case. I do not, therefore, find fault.

Second letter September 2019

34. In September 2019, the Council sent a carefully worded letter from the deputy leader asking people not to play ballgames in Mr C’s road. Mr C believes this letter should have been firmer. The Ombudsman cannot find fault on that basis. This was, again, a question of judgment.
35. Mr C believes the Council should have also erected signs prohibiting ball games or insisting that soft balls only should be used. The Council considered this proposal but decided against doing so. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take and there is no evidence of fault in the way it was taken.
36. Mr C says that, because of Council fault, the antisocial behaviour on his street has continued. I cannot find that this was the case. The Council did take action and it cannot be held responsible for the actions of youths who live in Mr C’s neighbourhood.

Contacts with the Council/complaint handling and apology

37. In August 2019, Mr C complained to the Council that members of the ASBU had been rude and had refused to take his calls. The Council investigated and found that Mr C had suffered poor service. This was fault.
38. A Council officer phoned Mr C in September 2019 to apologise. Mr C’s notes confirm this. Mr C says, however, that the Council’s apology was half-hearted, and says that the officer said there had been ‘a lot of fuss about some ballgames’. The Council denies this.
39. There is therefore an agreement that there was an apology but a dispute about what was said afterwards. The Council says there is no recording of the phone call and there is, therefore, no way of finding any independent or documentary evidence to support either version of events.
40. We make our decisions on the balance of probabilities. That is to say, we decide what is most likely to have happened on the available evidence. It is for the complainant to prove his claims. That means that, in cases where it is one person’s recollection of events against another with no independent evidence, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to uphold a complaint. In this case, I cannot uphold this part of this complaint.
41. The Council has already apologised to Mr C. I will not therefore recommend a further remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint. I have found fault but I have found that the Council has already remedied that fault. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman