Summary: Mr C complained about how the Council dealt with his complaints of anti-social behaviour. We find the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained about how the Council dealt with his complaints of anti-social behaviour. He says his concerns have not been taken seriously by the Council and it unexpectedly issued a community protection warning to him. Mr C also complained about the attitude and behaviour of Council officers when dealing with him.
2. Mr C says he continues to suffer abuse and anti-social behaviour because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the way the Council dealt with Mr C’s complaints of anti-social behaviour from February 2019 onwards. I have not investigated the way the Council dealt with Mr C’s complaints before February 2019 for the reasons explained at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information Mr C submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
8. Mr C 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

Anti-social behaviour

9. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It may include verbal and physical threats and harassment. (Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
10. Councils have a duty to deal with ASB and will work with partners, such as the police, to tackle it. (Section 17, Crime and Disorder Act 1998)
11. Councils can issue a Community Protection Notice (CPN) against someone for ASB. Failure to comply with the CPN can lead to court action.
12. A CPN can be issued if the behaviour is having a detrimental impact on the quality of life for neighbours.
13. Councils must issue a Community Protection Warning (CPW) in advance of the CPN. This states that if the ASB continues, a CPN will be issued.

What happened

14. Mr C says he has experienced ASB from his neighbours for many years.
15. In March 2019, Mr C’s landlord emailed the Council and made it aware of ASB complaints from both Mr C and his neighbour about each other.
16. The police sent a letter to Mr C and his neighbour the following week and warned that if both parties continued ASB, it could seek a CPW or a CPN. Mr C disputes receiving this letter.
17. Mr C attended a meeting with a Council officer (Officer A) in June 2019. He said he wanted to start a Community Trigger because of the harassment from his neighbour. A Community Trigger allows people to ask local agencies to review how their reports of anti-social behaviour have been handled. Officer A explained that it could start a Community Trigger if there were three separate complaints to the Council, police or landlord within the past six months and no action had been taken. Officer A looked through the notes Mr C provided but confirmed that without evidence, the police could not take any further action. Therefore, the Council could not start a Community Trigger. However, Officer A agreed to contact the police and said she would be in touch if it had any further evidence.
18. The Council’s notes from the meeting also show that Officer A told Mr C he could receive a CPW if there was evidence he was harassing his neighbour. She advised Mr C to stay away from his neighbour and agreed to send him diary sheets so he could record any further incidents.
19. In early July 2019, Officer A emailed the police and asked if it had any evidence from Mr C to start a Community Trigger. She also confirmed she had made Mr C aware of the potential for a CPW if the ASB continued. The police responded and confirmed it did not have any evidence.
20. Around the same time, there was a further incident between Mr C and his neighbour. The police attended and investigated the incident.
21. At the end of July 2019, the Council emailed the police and Mr C’s landlord and asked for their agreement to issue CPWs to both Mr C and his neighbour because of the recent incident.
22. In early August 2019, a Council officer (Officer B) sent a letter to Mr C. She explained the Council, the police and the landlord had to intervene on both sides because of the continuing issues. She invited Mr C to attend a meeting to try and provide a solution.
23. The Council issued CPWs to both Mr C and his neighbour in August 2019. The Council warned Mr C that if he did not comply with the conditions set out in the CPW, it could issue him with a CPN.
24. Mr C emailed the Council in September 2019. He complained about the CPW and the restrictions which meant he could not fix his car. Officer A sent a letter to Mr C. She explained that when they met in June 2019, they agreed the best way forward was for Mr C and his neighbour to have no further contact with each other as any further incidents of ASB could result in the Council issuing a CPW to either or both of them. She also explained the following weekend there was a further incident between Mr C and his neighbour, which involved the police. Therefore, the Council issued a CPW to both parties.
25. Mr C responded to Officer A’s letter. He said it had been many weeks since she had been in touch. He asked for a meeting so he could go through his diary records. Officer A responded and confirmed Officer B would be dealing with the issues going forward. She told Mr C if there had been any further issues since it issued the CPW to his neighbour, he could complete the diary sheets and send any further evidence.
26. Mr C emailed Officer A in October 2019 and complained it had taken 77 days after the meeting to contact him. He said she had not mentioned anything about a CPW in their meeting and that she had failed to act on his request for a Community Trigger. Officer B responded to Mr C and asked him to attend a meeting to discuss his complaints.
27. Mr C phoned the Council and asked to delay the meeting for two weeks. He said the Council had done nothing with his Community Trigger request and had not followed protocol by issuing the CPW. The Council explained there was not enough evidence to start the Community Trigger and it had acted on his concerns by sending the CPW to his neighbour.
28. Mr C attend a meeting in November 2019 with Officer A and B, the police, and his landlord. Mr C’s daughter also attended. The Council explained why it issued the CPW. Mr C said Officer A did not tell him in the meeting in June 2019 that it would issue a CPW. He also expressed concerns with the content of the CPW. The Council agreed to send Mr C an amended CPW.
29. Mr C complained to the Council. He said it took 77 days for it to write back to him after the meeting in June 2019. He also said Council officers had lied to him, shouted at him in a meeting in November 2019 and failed to follow the correct protocol when issuing the CPW. The Council responded in January 2020. It explained there was no evidence to support Mr C’s allegations that its officers had lied to him. It accepted that Officer A might have taken 77 days to get back to him, but that Mr C had received correspondence from other members of the team during that time.
30. Mr C referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council reiterated its earlier position and said it did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.
31. Mr C remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

32. Mr C says the Council unexpectedly issued a CPW. He disputes Officer A mentioned the CPW in the meeting in June 2019 and says she lied about it in a meeting in November 2019. The evidence shows the police sent Mr C a letter about the potential for a CPW in March 2019, although he disputes receiving it. The Council has provided me with a written record of the meeting in June 2019. This shows that Officer A made Mr C aware of the CPW in the meeting. Officer A also emailed the police early the following month and confirmed she had told Mr C about the CPW in the meeting. It is unlikely she would do this if she had not told Mr C about the CPW. Therefore, I am satisfied Mr C was aware of the CPW.
33. Mr C has also expressed concern the Council failed to act on his request for a Community Trigger and that Officer A took 77 days to get back to him. The evidence shows the Council told Mr C in the meeting in June 2019 that he did not meet the threshold to start a Community Trigger because there was no evidence. However, it agreed to contact to police to check if it had any evidence. The police confirmed it did not. In early July 2019, there was another incident between Mr C and his neighbour. Officer B wrote to Mr C in August 2019 and invited him to a meeting to discuss the recent incident and to try and provide a solution. Mr C did not attend this meeting. The Council consulted with the police and Mr C’s landlord and they all agreed the best way to tackle the ASB was to issue both parties with CPWs. This happened in August 2019.
34. I accept that it took Officer A 77 days to write to Mr C. However, it is clear Mr C had communication from Officer B. The Council could not pursue the Community Trigger as it had no evidence. The Council followed a different strategy because of the incident in July 2019 between Mr C and his neighbour. I appreciate Mr C disagrees with this decision. However, the Ombudsman can only question a decision or process if it was carried out with fault. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision in this case and so I am satisfied it acted properly.
35. Mr C has provided me with a recording of the meeting in November 2019. He says Council officers shouted at him and his daughter. The Council accepts that Officer A raised her voice to be heard over Mr C’s interruptions. The Council says it apologises for this but disputes that this incident amounted to shouting at Mr C.
36. I have listened to the recording. Mr C raised several concerns. Both officers denied Mr C’s allegations. I accept both officers raised their voices to have their points heard. However, I do not accept that this was shouting in the way Mr C has described. I therefore do not find fault with the Council on this point.
37. Mr C also complained that Officer B turned up at his property in August 2019 to deliver the CPW and banged on his door loudly. He says he asked her what it was about and whether it was positive or negative. He says Officer B told him she did not know. He says it is clear Officer B did know what it was about as she signed the CPW. The Council denies Mr C’s version of events. I have not seen any evidence to support Mr C’s claims and so I cannot find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. We cannot investigate complains when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done, unless there are good reasons to do so.
40. Mr C came to the Ombudsman in February 2020. I am satisfied Mr C had sufficient opportunities to complain to the Ombudsman sooner about issues before February 2019. I am therefore not exercising discretion to investigate anything that happened before February 2019.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman