Summary: Mrs X complains, on behalf of herself and other neighbours, about the way the Council handled multiple reports of anti-social behaviour by residents of a nearby property over a three year period. The Council was at fault for not communicating properly with the neighbours following a community trigger. It should apologise and take action to prevent that happening again.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains, on behalf of herself and other neighbours, about how the Council handled multiple reports of anti-social behaviour by residents of a nearby property. She says the Council did not address the source of the problems and did not keep residents updated. She says the Council’s lack of action caused severe distress and frustration for the neighbours over a three year period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.
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 information provided by Mrs X and the Council
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below
• our guidance on remedies
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

8. The law 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.

(Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, section 2)

9. The law places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour. (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 17) This includes making enquiries and considering whether to exercise their legal powers to take action.
10. Where a council decides noise complained about amounts to a statutory nuisance it should serve an abatement notice. This requires the person responsible to stop or restrict the noise. (Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 80)
11. Councils can use community protection notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a detrimental effect on the community’s quality of life and is considered unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require reasonable steps to be taken to ensure it is not repeated. Councils must send a written warning before issuing a CPN.
12. Victims and communities affected by anti-social behaviour can use the community trigger, a process that allows them to ask the local Community Safety Partnership to review its responses to reports of anti-social behaviour.

What happened

13. Mrs X and her neighbours reported concerns to the Council about anti-social behaviour by neighbours. Most of the complaints related to Mr A and his family. Some reports related to the tenants at the property next door to Mr A. I have considered how the Council responded from May 2017 onwards, which is the period covered by the formal complaint the Council considered.

Rubbish and fly tipping

14. Mrs X says she made 27 complaints to the Council about rubbish and fly tipping in the vicinity of Mr A’s property. Although she acknowledges the Council took prompt action to remove the rubbish, she considers it did not take appropriate action to stop it happening again. She says it issued one fixed penalty fine, but residents considered fixed penalty notices were not an appropriate way to deal with the problem.
15. The Council said it had removed rubbish in line with its policies. It issued a community protection notice (CPN) to Mr A in November 2017, which required him to take action to remove rubbish. The Council said it was not always possible to identify who had dumped the rubbish and, on some occasions, it was by children, who were too young to take formal action against. In December 2018, the Council installed a covert camera but says the footage obtained was not of sufficient quality to support formal action. The records show the Council was in regular contact with Mrs X about the rubbish and fly tipping.

Collection and selling of scrap

16. Residents complained a number of times that Mr A had set up as a waste collector and was fly tipping in the street. They also complained that two children were collecting scrap with a view to selling it.
17. The Council made enquiries in 2018 but found no evidence Mr A was operating a waste collection business. It made further enquiries in 2019, which established the children were collecting scrap. It asked Mr A to remove the scrap stored at the property and to limit future collections. An officer checked a few days later that the scrap had been removed and sent an email to Mrs X to confirm this had been done.

Working on and selling cars

18. Residents reported Mr A was running a business repairing cars on the street and driving the cars he was working on too fast in the residential area.
19. Council records show that Mr A denied he was running a business and the Council did not find sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Officers spoke to Mr A to explain that his actions, although legal, were aggravating the difficult situation with his neighbours. Mr A agreed to limit the work to one car at a time and only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. These conditions were set out in a CPN.

The behaviour of children

20. The residents reported various concerns about the children’s behaviour including playing music loudly in the garden, running up and down the street shouting, littering and putting rubbish in other people’s bins, and being generally rude and intimidating.
21. The Council worked with the police to deal with those behaviours that amounted to criminal acts. This led to three children agreeing to acceptable behaviour contracts. Other agencies worked with the children, including encouraging them to engage in more appropriate activities.
22. The Council also worked with children’s social care, which supported the children and the family, and supported them to access education.

Loud music

23. In May and June 2018 neighbours complained about loud music during the day and into the evening. The Council made enquiries. It installed noise monitoring equipment in a neighbouring house but found no evidence of loud music from Mr A’s house.
24. The Council did identify noise coming from an adjacent property. It spoke to the letting agent for that property, who was aware of the problem. I have seen a warning letter the letting agent wrote to the tenants about the noise levels. The Council did not consider the noise amounted to a statutory nuisance.

Dog barking

25. Mrs X and other neighbours complained about a dog barking all day long at Mr A’s property. The Council asked them to complete diary sheets to show the frequency of the problem. It then installed noise monitoring equipment at Mrs X’s house, which provided evidence the barking amounted to a statutory notice. The Council served Mr A with an Abatement Notice.
26. Mrs X reported the noise continued despite the Abatement Notice. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment again and again found evidence of a statutory nuisance. It wrote to Mr A warning him about possible prosecution if he continued to breach the Notice. The statutory nuisance continued. The Council prosecuted Mr A in the Magistrates Court, which imposed a fine.

Issues with a hedge and wall

27. A neighbour reported that Mr A had threatened to knock down their wall. A Council officer visited. They noted that a hedge was overgrowing onto Mr A’s property, which was causing the wall to curve into his property, and which was blocking light from the front of his house. The officer spoke to Mr A, who explained he had offered to cut back the hedge and rebuild the wall, although accepted the neighbour had found his tone intimidating. The Council took no further action because it decided the steps Mr A proposed were reasonable.

Concerns about an extension

28. In April 2019 a neighbour objected to a single storey extension to the rear of Mr A’s property, which he had built about a year earlier. Based on that information, the Council wrote to Mr A in May 2019 to explain he may need planning permission.. After further emails from the neighbour, a Council officer carried out a site visit and took photos, following which the Council wrote to Mr A again. Mr A did not make a planning application and moved out of the property soon afterwards.
29. The Council’s stage 2 complaint response says the planning and building control teams had confirmed they had no issues with the extension. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the responses from those teams had been misrepresented in the complaint response. It clarified that the method of construction did not require building regulations approval. However, enforcement officers had identified that planning permission is required and is taking action to address this.

Response to community action triggers

30. Mrs X complained that two neighbours had activated the community trigger. She says one did not get a response. She says the other got an unsatisfactory response.
31. Council records show that one neighbour, Mr M, contacted a councillor about the anti-social behaviour and the Council’s response. A few days later, another neighbour, Ms N, contacted the Council about activating the community trigger.
32. The Council had an initial meeting with the police, at which it was agreed a community trigger review was appropriate. It wrote to Ms N on 27 June 2018 setting out the proposed timetable for action.
33. There was a multi-agency meeting on 5 July 2018, involving various local agencies. Following this meeting the Council wrote to Mr M, as the first complainant in time.
34. In response to my enquiries the Council said this was the first time a community trigger had been activated. It had reviewed the process and identified lessons that could be learned from it.
• Firstly, it had decided it would not be productive to have all the neighbours attending the meeting but should have thought further about how they could be represented.
• Secondly, the Council recognised a need to communicate the outcomes to all neighbours, not just write to one of them and expect them to communicate with the others.
35. In May 2019 the Council made a referral to mediation services but Mr A did not engage with that process. Mr A and his family left the property in late August 2019.

My findings

36. Mrs X and other neighbours reported a considerable number of issues about Mr A and his family. Council records show the family had complex needs and were being supported by a number of agencies. The Council was balancing the need to support the family with the need to support other neighbours affected by the behaviour of family members.
37. I have considered in detail the action the Council took in relation to each of the types of complaint set out above. Although I understand the process was protracted from the point of view of the neighbours who were complaining, I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to address their concerns, did not delay in taking that action, and worked appropriately with other relevant agencies.
38. There was an error in the stage 2 complaint response in relation to the extension built without planning permission. However, I do not consider this is sufficient to warrant a finding of fault and I am satisfied the Council is now considering action about the extension.
39. Mrs X and other neighbours also reported some issues with the tenants of the property next door to Mr A. Again, I have considered the Council’s records and am satisfied it acted appropriately to address those concerns.
40. Two neighbours activated a community trigger within days of each other. This is a process which enables residents to ask the local Community Safety Partnership to review its responses to reports of anti-social behaviour. The Council and police had an initial meeting, in which they agreed a review was appropriate. It then arranged a multi-agency meeting to carry out the review. So, although the process was activated by two neighbours there was only one review.
41. The Council says this was the first time it had used the community trigger process. It accepts it did not do enough to ensure the voice of the neighbours (the victims) was heard during that process. It also accepts it was not sufficient to write to only one neighbour with the outcome of the review and expect that person to share information with the other neighbours. I would add that the Council could have shared more detailed information about the action it had taken and proposed to take. It was not sufficient to simply explain its process.
42. The failure to adequately involve the neighbours in the community trigger and share information about it with them was fault. This fault caused frustration for the neighbours, who felt they were not being listened to. Although the Council says it has learned lessons from this case, it is not clear what changes it has made to its processes as a result.

Back to top

Agreed actions

43. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, write to Mrs X to apologise to all the neighbours involved in the complaint for its failure to involve them properly in the community trigger process and its failure to share the outcome with them.
44. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision, review its community trigger process to ensure:
• it has a full record of the lessons learned from this case;
• it documents the changes to the process for the future; and
• it communicates this to all relevant staff.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing personal injustice. I recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman