Summary: Mr C complained the Council did not properly respond or take appropriate action in response to his reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours which he says was racially motivated. Mr C says he and his family suffered unnecessary upset, distress and anxiety. We have found fault by the Council in the time taken to provide a decision to Mr C but consider the apology it has already provided is enough to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council has not properly responded or taken appropriate action in response to his reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbours which he says was racially motivated from June 2019 to February 2021.
2. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault he and his family have suffered unnecessary upset, distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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)
4. 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)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation

9. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 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
10. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour.  Councils will have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about anti-social behaviour, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary.

Scope of my investigation

11. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
12. Mr C made a previous complaint to the Ombudsman that the Council did not deal effectively with racist anti-social behaviour from his neighbours which had occurred since 2014. We decided in July 2020 that we could not investigate that complaint as Mr C did not complain to us within 12 months of the matters complained about. We explained it was open to Mr C to complain to the Council about its actions relating to more recent events and if he remained unhappy with the outcome, he could bring the complaint back to the Ombudsman and we would deal with this as a separate complaint.
13. I cannot investigate the same issues on which we previously issued the above decision. I have investigated Mr C’s new complaint which related to events from June 2019 to February 2021.
14. We have no power to investigate the Council’s actions in its capacity as a landlord to deal with the behaviour of its tenants. Such a complaint is caught by the restriction outlined at paragraph 7 above. We have jurisdiction to deal with complaints about how councils have dealt with anti-social behaviour using their non-landlord powers such as their general anti-social behaviour powers or noise nuisance powers.

Key events

15. Mr C is the owner-occupier of a property. His neighbours’ property is owned by the Council.
16. Mr C reported two dogs being loose in his local area to the Council at the end of June 2019. The Council visited the area in early July and confirmed to Mr C the local grassed area did not have a control order requiring dogs to be on a lead but they should be under control.
17. Mr C contacted the Council about the use of a nearby parking area, damage to its fence and oil spillage in June and July. The Council had granted Mr C permission via a licence to construct the car parking area and for him to be responsible for all subsequent maintenance. The Council visited the area in response to Mr C’s reports and confirmed the matter would be passed to its tenancy services team.
18. Mr C reported his neighbour’s bin being left outside his property in July. The Council confirmed it would remove the bin and speak to his neighbour.
19. Mr C contacted the Council on 25 May 2020 with a link to a video showing a person shouting abuse at him which had been captured on his doorbell camera. The Council telephoned Mr C to advise him to report the matter to the police as a racist incident and the Council would consider what action to take depending on the outcome.
20. Mr C contacted the Council on 8 June to say he had reported the incident to the police and they had taken a statement on 6 June.
21. Mr C contacted the Council on 24 June seeking an update. The Council responded to Mr C and contacted the Police on 27 June and were advised that the outcome of the case was a Racially Aggravated Public Order Caution. The Council referred the matter to its Legal Services team the same day.
22. Mr C contacted the Council on 17 August outlining the history of previous incidents with his neighbour and seeking an update. Mr C contacted the Council on 9 September seeking an update. The Council spoke with Mr C and explained the matter was with its Legal Services team.
23. Mr C contacted the Council on 28 September seeking an update. The Council wrote to Mr C on 1 October to set out its decision not to take legal action against his neighbours. The Council apologised for the delay following his report of the incident on 25 May. The Council explained it had initially waited for the outcome of the police action before deciding its own action and then there was a delay due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Council’s letter set out the details of the incident and police outcome.
24. The Council noted the person involved was the adult child of his neighbour who did not live at the property and was not a Council tenant. The Council had no evidence that the person involved had been visiting Mr C’s neighbours at the time of the incident or that they had any control or influence at the time. The Council also noted there had been no previous incidents involving the person or any since May. The Council advised it had a duty to act proportionately and in accordance with the law and its own policies in respect of any anti-social behaviour from tenants or their lawful visitors and that any decision had to be based on robust evidence. The Council confirmed it had decided to issue the person with a formal written warning outlining that they were aware of the incident and such behaviour would not be tolerated and if repeated it may consider further action which could include obtaining an injunction banning them from the area including their parents’ house. The Council would also explain that if an injunction was subsequently granted by the Courts and breached it may result in them being sent to prison. The Council would also advise that if they caused any future anti- social behaviour when visiting their parents, it could put their parent’s tenancy at risk. The Council confirmed it was also sending a written warning to Mr C’s neighbours warning them of their responsibilities under their tenancy agreement and reminding them that they were responsible for anyone living or visiting their property and failure to do so may amount to a breach of their tenancy agreement which could put their tenancy at risk despite no evidence of their involvement in the particular incident. The Council confirmed it would continue to monitor the situation and consider further action if the evidence justified such action.
25. Mr C contacted the Council on 2 October to say its letter above contained errors. Mr C referred to two previous historic incidents involving the person and stated he had seen they were visiting his neighbours at the time of the May incident and one of his neighbours was next to the person at the time although they could not be seen in the video recording. Mr C also reported an incident that had happened the week before the May incident when his neighbour had made a comment about him and an incident the previous year when their grandchild had drawn a circle around their house with Mr C’s initials on the perimeter to show what was Mr C’s space. Mr C said this event was followed by his neighbours gathering outside his property and calling him a spy using offensive language. Mr C referred to the history of problems with his neighbours which he had suspected was due to racial hatred but that the Council had not taken these seriously.
26. Mr C contacted the Council on 6 October to complain about its decision not to take legal action against his neighbours. Mr C repeated that the Council’s letter was based on wrong and partial assumptions. Mr C referred to events dating back to 2016 and that the more recent events had shown his neighbours’ actions had always been racially motivated and so the Council should take legal action and his earlier reports should not have been dismissed.
27. The Council responded to Mr C on 23 October and noted that although one of his neighbour’s adult children had received a police caution for the incident in May 2020 this did not mean all his previous reports were substantiated or had a racial element. The Council noted the majority of Mr C’s previous reports had no supporting evidence and counter allegations had been made. The Council confirmed it did not propose any further action to that already taken and advised Mr C of his right to complain to the Ombudsman.
28. Mr C reported loud music and rubbish outside his property from his neighbours to the Council in mid-February 2021.The Council offered to send diary sheets and speak to his neighbour.

My assessment

29. There was a delay between Mr C reporting an incident captured on his doorbell camera at the end of May 2020 and the Council writing to Mr C at the beginning of October to confirm the action it had decided to take. I consider there was some avoidable delay during this period which is fault. However, I note the Council was in touch with Mr C during the period and has already provided an apology for the delay. I consider this provides a suitable remedy to Mr C and we would not seek more.
30. 
    I appreciate the strength of Mr C’s feelings about his neighbours’ behaviour but the Ombudsman can only investigate the Council’s responses to his reports rather than the actions of his neighbours. Apart from the delay highlighted above, I am satisfied the Council has properly responded to Mr C’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
31. The Council has provided a detailed explanation of the action it has taken to Mr C and provided cogent reasons for its decision not to take legal action against his neighbours. This is a decision it is entitled to reach.
32. Mr C has made more recent reports to the Council about loud music in March and another incident captured on his doorbell camera in April. These matters did not form part of Mr C’s complaint to the Ombudsman or my investigation. Mr C would need to complain to the Council first about these matters if he is unhappy with its response.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the action it has already taken provides a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman