Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to act on her reports of anti-social behaviour where she lives. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The information I have seen shows the Council has tried to help Ms X, despite many of her concerns being the responsibility of the freeholder of her building. Further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to act on her reports of anti-social behaviour. She says youths congregate in the public areas using drugs and alcohol, littering, spitting, and urinating under the communal staircase.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
3. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council. Ms X commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X owns a flat in a block where the freehold is owned and managed by a housing association. Many of the other residents are tenants of the housing association.
6. Ms X has contacted the Council numerous times using social media and direct emails, complaining about various forms of anti-social behaviour such as:
• Youths congregating in public areas using drugs and alcohol
• People spitting
• Littering; and
• People urinating under the communal staircase in her building
7. The Council has no jurisdiction over the alleged anti-social behaviour as it is occurring on private land owned by the housing association. However, in correspondence with Ms X the Council has confirmed the Police are aware of her concerns and will patrol the area when they can. It says as a gesture of goodwill it has asked a uniformed service provider which provides security services, to patrol the area in the evening.
8. The Council also says it has contacted the head teacher of the local school to see it teachers could help identify the youths casing the problems.
9. I have also seen correspondence from the Council to the housing association, reporting Ms X’s concerns. The responses I have seen show the housing association has considered her reports and says there is little evidence to support her allegations. However, it also confirms the Police patrol the area regularly and the communal areas are consistently cleaned.
10. The Council has advised that Ms X has not complained using the formal complaints procedure. Instead she has made many social media posts and ‘tweets’ as well as directly emailing individual officers. I have reviewed correspondence which names individual Council officers and contains unacceptable, threatening, and abusive language.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the actions and responsibilities of the housing association as freeholder of Ms X’s property are outside our jurisdiction.
12. Also, I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council has ignored Ms X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. It has informed the Police, liaised with the local school, and arranged for a uniformed security service to patrol the area. Further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the Council’s actions or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman