Summary: Mr B complains the Council incorrectly issued him with a Community Protection Warning letter in 2019. He says the Council’s anti-social behaviour investigation has been biased. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint. The Council has acted in line with procedures overall.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr B) says the Council incorrectly issued him and his wife (Mrs B) with a Community Protection Warning letter (CPW letter). He also says the Council Officer investigating reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by their neighbour has been unprofessional and derogatory towards people with mental health conditions. He then refers to the Council refusing to meet him to discuss the case.
2. In addition, Mr B has referred to events that happened prior to January 2019 including complaint handling, issues with ASB, alleged data breaches. He also refers to the actions of the Police.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I am looking at events from January 2019 onwards in respect of how the Council considered reports of ASB by Mr B and the issuing of the CPW letter to him. I set out below why I am not considering other points.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the Council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
5. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the Police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I have spoken to Mr and Mrs B. I considered the extensive information they supplied. I also asked the Council questions and examined its response alongside the relevant statutory guidance.
11. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

12. Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council about the actions of their neighbour in 2018 and counter allegations were also been made against them. In 2018 the Council issued Mr B and his neighbour with a CPW letter. It required that both parties not approach individuals or groups expressing derogatory views about their neighbour.

Events I have investigated

13. I have seen all the Council’s records for both Mr B’s case and his neighbour’s counter allegations. I cannot share third party data, but I have considered all of the evidence.
14. In February 2019 the Technical Officer at the Council was contacted by the neighbour with a report of ASB by Mr and Mrs B. The Technical Officer provided information to both parties and found no evidence of ASB to pursue. He received additional contact from the neighbour in April which did not require further investigation and no contact was made with Mr B.
15. On 12 October 2019 Mr and Mrs B contacted the Technical Officer, they had received a typed anonymous letter which stated a resident had told the author that Mr and Mrs B’s neighbour was making distressing comments about them and other residents. It also said there had been an incident between the neighbour and a workman. Mr and Mrs B felt they were being slandered by their neighbour. The Technical Officer exchanged a number of emails with Mr and Mrs B about this. He told Mrs B he would not be knocking on doors to see who wrote the letter. Mr and Mrs B continued to contact the Council. The Technical Officer then visited the street and spoke to a small number of immediate neighbours about the letter but was unable to verify who wrote it. He told Mr B the letter contained unsubstantiated opinion and its integrity could not be verified. There was no evidence who had sent it and the matter was closed.
16. On 24 October, another resident contacted the Technical Officer. They had received a letter from Mr and Mrs B which they felt would cause further issues and had caused them to feel unsettled. The letter had been sent to people in the street. A copy of the letter was provided. It stated that Mr and Mrs B had received an anonymous letter about comments made by a resident about them. That type of behaviour had happened before and was causing them distress. They asked the author of the anonymous letter to contact the Council to pursue the case.
17. On 25 October the Technical Officer issued a CPW letter to Mr B. It said he must not send “harassing written communications to your neighbours” and cease the behaviour. If the problem continued the Council could serve a Community Protection Notice (Notice) which, if breached, would result in a £100 fine. The Council said this action had been prompted by “responses” to their letter and set out five quotes.
18. Also, in October the neighbour told the Technical Officer about an issue with Mr B. The Technical Officer did not need to contact Mr B, it was not ASB and he sought to resolve this with another Council service.
19. At the end of October Mr and Mrs B complained to the Council. They said the procedures for a CPW letter had not been followed, the Council was biased and had been hostile and used poor judgement. They wanted to meet with the Council. They set out a lengthy reiteration of previous issues with their neighbour in 2017 and 2018 together with a large volume of supporting data. The Council replied on 8 November. It said it had correctly issued the CPW letter because of concerns by other residents. There was no evidence of misconduct by the Technical Officer or that he had made derogatory comments about mental health or been biased. The request for a meeting had been considered but it would not help resolve the complaint and was denied.
20. Mr and Mrs B then asked the Council to escalate their complaint. On 20 November, the Council replied. There was no evidence that Officers had manipulated evidence or lied. Mr and Mrs B had already clearly outlined their concerns in correspondence and so a meeting would not provide additional information to aid a reconsideration of the case. The Council apologised because the initial complaint response did not have a reference number on it.

What should have happened

21. The Council will investigate reports of ASB. For residents who are in private housing the case is looked at by a Technical Officer. They will assess the evidence to see if there is ASB which requires formal intervention. Where counter allegations are made the Technical Officer has a duty to consider them and determine if they have any merit.
22. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, ASB Powers: Statutory Guidance sets out what the Council should do when considering a Notice. The guidance (along with other guidance by professional bodies) has a focus on the process for the Notice rather than the CPW letter. It says that in cases of “unreasonable behaviour” the Council can issue a CPW letter. If the behaviour continues a Notice will be sent. In respect of unreasonable behaviour, the Council should consider the impact of the perpetrator’s behaviour on the quality of life of those in the locality. A Notice should only be issued where the perpetrator’s actions are persistent/ continuing and unreasonable, that requirement is not applied to the CPW letter.
23. The Council says that a Technical Officer will take account of the statutory guidance when deciding if a CPW letter should be issued. They can issue a CPW letter “in conjunction” with their Line Manager. The Council says that a CPW letter can be issued for unreasonable behaviour, it does not have to be persistent as that criterion only applies for a Notice.

Was there fault by the Council

24. Mr and Mrs B say the CPW letter should not have been issued. The guidance relating to a CPW letter is very limited, the majority of it relates to the subsequent Notice. The guidance can be read as only requiring evidence of unreasonable behaviour causing a detrimental effect on the locality. This is how the Council has taken forward its approach to CPW letters. That is a position it is allowed to take given the guidance leaves room for interpretation. The CPW letter refers to “responses” to Mr B’s letter and then sets out five separate quotes. The quotes are all from one email and this was the only response the Council received about the letter. They are included by the Council to evidence there has been unreasonable behaviour causing a detrimental effect on the locality. In my view the Council should have made it clear, as good practice, that it had received a single complaint, not multiple. That said, the Council had a right to issue the CPW letter because of a single complaint and incident. It did not have a statutory duty to prove there was a persistent and ongoing issue. Even if the Council had stipulated it had received a single complaint in the CPW letter that would not have altered the outcome. Mr and Mrs B disagree with the Council’s decision to issue the CPW letter, but the Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions in the absence of significant fault.
25. Mr B says the Council has unfairly continued to consider counter allegations made by his neighbour against him in 2019. There is no fault by the Council. It received three complaints which it had a duty to consider. The Technical Officer only contacted Mr B about one complaint, he did not pursue the other two and explained his reasoning to the complainant. The Council has concluded the level of contact from the neighbour in 2019 would not be sufficient to be classed as vexatious or a form of ASB. Mr B may well disagree with that decision, but it is one the Council is entitled to reach.
26. Mr B says the Council should have agreed to his request to meet in 2019. There is no fault by the Council. It considered the request and explained why it did not see it as necessary. The Council is not obliged to meet someone because they request it. In this case an Officer explained why a meeting was not agreed.
27. Mr B complains the Technical Officer has acted unprofessionally and made derogatory comments about mental health. I have not found any contemporaneous evidence of derogatory comments being made. Mr B refers to the Technical Officer initially stating in October 2019 he would not ask neighbours about the anonymous letter. He subsequently visited some neighbours. I do not see this is fault. The Officer was entitled to change his approach if he considered it would help resolve matters. Given the ongoing communications between Mr B and the Officer at that time it was open to him to visit some residents if he felt this would help resolve the incident. An investigation is a flexible process that should adapt according to the evidence and needs of the case.
28. Mr B also refers to the layout, changing font and digital signatures on letters from the Council. There is no fault in this matter. The layout or font used by the Council is for it to choose, there is no evidence any of the letters were not officially sent by the Council or that the format or signature on a letter has caused any significant injustice to Mr B. Mr B also says there was a missing reference number on the initial complaint response by the Council. The Council has already apologised for that error and I cannot see it caused any injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. I have already explained in detail to Mr B why I am not considering events dating back to 2017. The Ombudsman expects a complaint to be made to him within 12 months. Mr B says he was not in a position to contact the Ombudsman but the evidence shows he was in regular contact with the Council and, as such, I see no reason why he could not have pursued a formal complaint with the Ombudsman sooner. This also means I am not investigating the Council’s complaint handling in respect of the 2018 complaint. Whilst it was not fully responded to until 2019 the substantive issues are outside of the timeframe of the investigation. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
31. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the Police. The data protection matters raised by Mr B have already been put to the Information Commissioner to consider.
32. I am also not looking at how the Council investigated whether a workman was insulted by Mr and Mrs B’s neighbour. There is no injustice to Mr and Mrs B and no basis to warrant further consideration of that point.
33. In addition, I am not looking at new incidents that have occurred since Mr and Mrs B’s formal complaint at the end of 2019 and the January 2020 reply from the Council. Any new issues need to be formally complained about to the Council first.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman