Summary: Mr D complains the Council did not properly investigate Hate Crimes against him. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council. He has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council, the Police and his landlord failed to properly investigate his reports of Hate Crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in 2019.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at the Council’s actions. I explain below what I have not investigated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 34A, as amended)
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. 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 have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 16 September 2019 Mr D emailed the Council’s Hate Crime mailbox. He said neighbours had been making comments about him relating to disability. He also said they had installed recording devices into floorboards and a smoke alarm to spy on him. The case was allocated to an Anti-Hate Crime Coordinator (Officer). They spoke to Mr D on 23 September and gained verbal consent to refer him to Victim Support. The Officer told Mr D they were waiting for updates from the Police and landlord.
9. On 3 October Mr D emailed the Hate Crime mailbox reiterating his neighbour was recording him via covert devices installed in his home. The next day the Council says the Officer asked Mr D to allow a visit. He declined because he wanted his landlord to attend. Mr D disputes this and I have no contemporaneous note of the conversation so am unable to verify what was said. The Officer did email Mr D that day to confirm a referral to Victim Support and that he was waiting for updates. The Police and landlord subsequently shared information with the Officer explaining no evidence was available to corroborate Mr D’s allegations. There were concerns about his wellbeing and the landlord took forward a referral to the Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (Risk Conference).
10. Also, in October Mr D contacted the Council unhappy with progress on his case. He was informed to contact the named Officer. Mr D did not engage further with the Officer or report any further incidents to him. On 7 October, the Officer spoke with the landlord and on 11 October he checked with Mr D if the landlord had been in contact.
11. In November, the Risk Conference met which included attendees from the Police, the landlord, and the Crisis Team. Mr D submitted a Community Trigger later that month for a review. On 2 December Mr D also formally complained to the Council stating it had failed to engage with him. On 12 December, the Community Trigger was reviewed and not upheld. The Council responded to the complaint on 20 December. Officers had contacted Mr D in October and acted correctly.
12. Mr D pursued his complaint in January 2020. The Council replied that its role in a case like this was to liaise with partners and facilitate a resolution via a Risk Conference or a Community Trigger Review. Officers had acted correctly, and the complaint was not upheld.

What should have happened

13. The Council will consider reports of Hate Crime that include ASB issues. An Officer will contact the complainant to discuss the incidents and assess what action is needed. The Council can decide to not pursue a case or to seek additional information from relevant agencies, such as the Police or a Social Housing landlord. The steps taken by the Council will depend on the nature of the issues being reported. If there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations the Council cannot take enforcement action against the alleged perpetrator. If there are concerns about the complainant’s wellbeing the Council can refer matters to the Risk Conference. That does not require consent from the complainant because the Council has a duty to fulfil its safeguarding role.
14. A complainant can ask for a review of their case via a Community Trigger. The Council then gathers updates from the agencies involved at a meeting to review the case and whether any recommendations are needed to progress matters.

Was there fault by the Council

15. Mr D says the Council failed to investigate his case and should not have referred him to the Risk Conference. I have not found any evidence of fault. The evidence shows me the Council responded in line with procedures. The Officer liaised promptly with other agencies to gather information. None of the parties involved obtained evidence to substantiate Mr D’s allegations and concerns. As such there was no enforcement action the Council could take.
16. The referral to the Risk Conference was made by the landlord, not the Council. However, the Council had a duty to attend and contribute to the Risk Conference because of the contact from Mr D and its safeguarding duty. I see no evidence the Council acted outside of its parameters. In addition, I see no evidence of fault with the Community Trigger process. Mr D clearly disagrees with the decisions taken by the Risk Conference, the Council and the review but that does not equate to evidence of procedural fault.
17. I appreciate Mr D does not agree with the Council, but the Ombudsman will not question the validity of such decisions in the absence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

18. Subject to further comments by Mr D and the Council, I intend to complete the investigation and not uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

19. I have not considered the actins of the Police or Mr D’s landlord as both bodies fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman