Cheshire West & Chester Council (20 005 902)

Category : Environment and regulation > Antisocial behaviour

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 04 Jun 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complained about the lack of action taken by the Council in response to reports of anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman found no fault with the way the Council investigated reports of ASB, or in the measures it put in place. We did find fault when the Council did not provide individual support or feedback to Miss X. It agreed to provide a remedy.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complained about the lack of action taken by the Council in response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a hostel near her home. She said the Council’s complaint response was not objective, not evidence based, and does not refer to policy.
  2. Miss X said she has suffered continuing ASB because of the failings of the Council. This has caused constant stress and has aggravated her migraines. She also has concerns about the impact on her son.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I understand the ASB Miss X complains about is a long-standing issue which has occurred over several years. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints which are more than 12 months old. Miss X’s most recent complaint to the Council was in August 2020. I have therefore decided to investigate ASB dating back to August 2019.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
    • The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
    • Documents provided by the Council, including its response to my enquiries.
    • The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 17).
    • The Council’s Housing Management Anti-Social Behaviour Policy (8 September 2018).
  2. Miss X 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

  1. The Council has a general duty to take action against ASB. Councils will usually have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about ASB, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary.
  2. Councils can discharge their duty by informal action, such as advice and mediation, or using formal powers (under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Housing Act 2004, or the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014).
  3. The Council entered a housing management contract with a company called ForHousing in July 2017. The contract was varied in April 2018 to reflect the Council awarding its homeless support service contract to ForHousing. The Council’s homeless support contract is delivered under the name ForFutures.
  4. The Council’s Housing Management Anti-Social Behaviour Policy (the policy) sets out how the Council and its housing management provider, ForHousing, tackle ASB. The policy defines ASB as:
    • “Behaviour which caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator.”
    • “Conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person and which directly or indirectly relates to or affects our housing management function.”
  5. The policy gives examples of ASB, including noise nuisance (shouting or loud music), ASB because of drink or drugs, criminal activity affecting the community, and aggressive or threatening behaviour.
  6. The policy says each report will be assessed individually, considering factors such as frequency and circumstances. The Council will give support to victims on a case-by-case basis, including a risk assessment to ensure the complainant’s support needs are met.
  7. The Council will try to resolve ASB informally, using warning interviews, restorative justice, good neighbour agreements, and mediation.

What happened

  1. I have summarised below some of the key events relevant to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened.
  2. Miss X lives in a residential street, opposite a hostel run by ForFutures. The street narrows after the hostel, providing pedestrian access to a main road and to a church graveyard. The hostel provides accommodation for homeless people, as part of the Council’s homelessness duty. Tenants at the hostel often have mental health or drug and alcohol dependency problems.
  3. Miss X told me that, according to information she received from the police, they had to help staff at the hostel with tenants on 101 occasions between June 2019 to May 2020.
  4. A local resident contacted ForFutures on 21 May 2020 with concerns about hostel tenants gathering at the back of the hostel, drinking, playing music, making noise, and swearing. They believed a tenant was dealing drugs and he threatened to headbutt a neighbour. They asked ForFutures to keep tenants away from one side of the hostel, as it attracts people to shout up to the windows.
  5. ForFutures responded on 27 May. It said it is not always possible to rehouse tenants at the other side of the hostel building. It said the people congregating outside the hostel building are not tenants. It asked staff to move people on if they are congregating. It also asked the local PCSO to do more patrols.
  6. Miss X emailed ForFutures on 10 July asking them to postpone the next community meeting until the police respond to neighbour’s concerns. She said she had sent many emails recently outlining neighbour’s concerns and they would prefer a letter recognising the issues and the actions planned to address them. Miss X also asked ForFutures to appoint a new councillor to chair the meetings.
  7. Miss X emailed ForFutures again on 18 July about ASB in and outside the hostel the previous night. She said a man was shouting and swearing at the front of the hostel, waking her up. Staff spoke to the man and agreed to call the police if he did not move on. She then saw two men with a torch shouting through the fence. One was drunk and staggering in the road. This caused tenants in the hostel to react to the commotion. Miss X asked ForFutures to restrict the courtyard and kitchen areas at night to prevent gathering. She asked what action plan Forfutures had to address ASB, as the fence and CCTV is not solving the problem.
  8. Another local resident contacted ForFutures on 14 July, complaining they achieved nothing in the last two years. The situation was worse, despite promises of action. He mentioned a man chasing a tenant down the street with a chainsaw for not paying a drug debt. He said the community meetings were futile.
  9. ForFutures responded on 20 July. It told the resident it kept its promise to manage the scheme by introducing 24/7 staff support, investing in closed circuit television (CCTV) monitoring, and committing to regular communication with local residents. It said all partner agencies will continue to support hostel tenants and make it clear they must comply with their occupancy agreement. It addresses all breaches with fair and consistent action. It looks into all neighbour complaints and responds or refers them to the police if necessary.
  10. ForFutures also contacted Miss X on 20 July, replying to her email of 18 July. It said it met with the police in recent weeks, and a representative of the nearby church, to raise concerns and see how best it can support the local community.
  11. Miss X emailed ForFutures on 21 July. She said she would not be attending the next community meeting. She said she gave reasons for this previously. She asked for information and minutes from previous community meetings.
  12. ForFutures replied and provided Miss X with minutes from meetings in 2019. It confirmed the residents who attended the meetings reported no issues.
  13. Miss X said there were several issues outstanding from the meetings, such as the CCTV upgrade, meetings about criminal activity, and feedback on how the housing needs assessment impacted the homeless strategy. She also asked about closing the churchyard at night, and why the police had not attended meetings.
  14. Forfutures responded on 28 July. It refused to provide Miss X with further information or updates. It said the community meetings was the forum for providing updates to those who attend them.
  15. Miss X reported noise nuisance to ForFutures on 30 June. ForFutures said staff patrolled the hostel building, but the noise did not come from the tenant Miss X alleged. Staff could not hear the music in the courtyard or office, only inside the building. They spoke to the tenant responsible, and he turned the music off and apologised. It said tenants know to play music at a reasonable level and feel like they cannot play music at all. Staff monitor music but occasionally it is at a level some find unacceptable. It is continuing to work with tenants about this. The tenant Miss X complained about is suffering with mental health issues and plays music to cope.
  16. The Council provided me with a log of neighbour complaints recorded by ForFutures, the service provider, between March and October 2020.
  17. In that time, staff logged 84 incidents. The reports included complaints about hostel residents, or their friends, shouting, swearing, being abusive, making threats, playing loud music, being drunk, and suspected drug dealing. Staff recorded some of the incidents took place within hostel grounds, some on the road that serves it, and some at the nearby church graveyard.
  18. Hostel staff reported incidents to a manager on 31 occasions, and told the police on 10 occasions.
  19. On other occasions, staff spoke to residents to resolve the issue, including asking them to turn down music, reduce the noise, or asking non-residents to move. On some occasions, staff could not identify any issue after checking CCTV or patrolling the site, so took no action other than to log the incident.
  20. Between July 2018 and December 2020, the Council held eight community meetings which were open for local residents to attend and raise issues. As well as Council officers and local residents, the meetings were regularly attended by staff from ForFutures, the management company of the hostel, and a local organisation working with people with drug and alcohol problems. The police also attended two of the meetings.
  21. Following community meetings, the Council and ForFutures completed the following actions:
    • 24-hour staff support at the hostel to cover evenings and weekends.
    • Full-time night support workers at the hostel.
    • Erecting a fence to stop ASB.
    • Arranged regular Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) visits.
    • Introduced a logbook in January 2019 to record concerns from local residents.
    • Put systems in place for hostel staff to police the building and document complaints.
    • Night staff at the hostel carrying out regular patrols at night and to address ASB issues quickly.
    • Put in place a curfew for the communal courtyard area of the hostel.
    • Residents at the hostel completed good neighbour workshops and received ASB handbooks.
    • Police visited the graveyard and signs were to be placed on church grounds.
  22. Miss X complained to the Council on 31 May 2020 about the continuing noise and ASB. She did not consider the location of the hostel’s office was suitable for staff to see ASB and respond to reports. She also raised concerns about tenants’ leaving windows open because of them having no control over the hostel’s heating.
  23. The landlord of the hostel responded to Miss X on 23 June, for itself, ForFutures, and the Council. It said all parties are committed to ensuring the hostel provides support to vulnerable people. They are also committed to ensuring residents of the wider community live in peace. They treat complaints about tenant behaviour seriously, and all parties strive to resolve the issues raised.
  24. It said its licence agreement places expectations on tenants about noise, harassment, and nuisance. Staff are at the hostel 24/7 and regularly patrol the building so they can deal with nuisance quickly. It did not plan to move the office and said tenants can control the heating in their rooms. It said Miss X should contact 111 about concerns outside the hostel.
  25. Miss X remained unhappy and took her complaint to stage two of the Council’s procedure. She questioned:
    • Whether there is proper contract management from ForFutures.
    • Whether the Council has reasonably acted on reports of ASB from residents.
    • Actions around installing CCTV and what the Council told her local MP.
    • Responses to enquiries and communications.
    • Whether planning permission is needed to change the use of the property to a hostel.
    • The minutes of community meetings.
  26. The Council responded on 23 September. It said:
    • It monitors the contract with Forfutures to ensure specific results are achieved. It does this through monthly performance reports, and details of complaints and ASB incidents. The Council’s housing team works closely with Forfutures and involves other agencies where there are reports of ASB. It said there was no evidence Forfutures did not meet expected standards.
    • Regular community meetings give residents the chance to raise concerns about ASB. Partner agencies also attend the meetings. Recently, the scheme manager, police, and a housing officer conducted a police led exercise visiting 19 homes near the hostel. Three homes raised issues about language from tenants and Forfutures will address this in line with tenant’s acceptable behaviour. Since the start of the contract, Forfutures have taken the following action:
      1. Reviewed its staffing structure to provide a dedicated team at the hostel to cover nights. A support worker and concierge are on duty every night.
      2. Fencing has been erected to create a physical barrier around the side and rear of the site.
      3. CCTV has been improved with added cameras for better monitoring.
      4. A PCSO provides regular visits to reinforce behavioural expectations.
      5. The licence agreement gives clear expectations on tenant behaviour. There have been occasions ForFutures have asked tenants to leave due to their behaviour.
      6. Co-produced house rules with input from tenants.
    • The Council is satisfied Forfutures has worked with relevant agencies to respond to resident’s concerns. Miss X’s complaint shows the problems continue, and it is therefore important the process continues and that agencies work together to find solutions. It will hold a community meeting shortly to discuss current issues.
    • ForFutures has upgraded its CCTV in the last few years to improve image quality and coverage. It helps with monitoring and with evidence. It told Miss X’s local MP about the upgrade in November 2018.
    • ForFutures and the Council provided responses addressing the substantive complaints and concerns Miss X raised. It is not possible to respond to every email.
    • The landlord of the building applied for planning permission in 1992 to extend the hostel for bedsits.
    • It noted Miss X’s dissatisfaction with minutes from the community meetings, and with the agencies that attended. The Council is satisfied the minutes reflect the meetings. Minutes are reviewed at the start of each meeting and the Council will ask that Miss X’s questions are addressed by the relevant agencies. Responses will be shared with the group.
    • Community meetings exist so residents can discuss issues they have. In future, the Council will ask for the agenda to be sent out in advance so those unable to attend can comment and add items. Residents will also be asked when they would like the meeting to take place.
  27. In conclusion, the Council was satisfied it acted on concerns raised by Miss X and other residents. The actions taken shows the Council is listening and making adjustments to reflect residents’ concerns. This will continue through regular meetings.
  28. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 5 October 2020 because she was dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response and believed it was not doing enough to tackle ASB. She said the Council was breaching her right to peacefully enjoy her home. Miss X was also unhappy ForFutures offered mediation, as this did not happen promptly. By that stage the ASB had increased, and she did not want to be known to the perpetrator.

Response to my enquiries

  1. The Council provided me with a copy of ForFutures licence agreement for its tenants. This includes specific responsibilities for tenants about use of the building and nuisance. Tenants cannot use the building for illegal or immoral purposes, including their visitors. Tenants must not cause a nuisance to neighbours or other occupiers. Tenants must not out unlawful activities near the building. Tenants must not make threats to other tenants or neighbours. Tenants must not use drugs on or near the building. The provider can end the agreement if tenants breach these conditions. In the case of nuisance, the licence refers to serious and or persistent nuisance or acts of harassment.
  2. The Council told me that, where hostel tenants breach their licence agreement with ForFutures, there is a three-step written warning process. Where an issue occurs, ForFutures will arrange a multi-agency meeting so support can be offered to prevent recurrence. It will then agree a behaviour contract with the tenant.
  3. Since August 2019, ForFutures have asked seven tenants to leave the hostel Ms X complains about.

Back to top

Analysis

  1. Problems with ASB are longstanding, so I understand local residents feeling the action taken by the Council and ForHousing has not been effective. However, the Council has discretion about how it tackles ASB. Its duty is to have a policy, to respond to reports, and try to act on them.
  2. On the evidence seen, the Council and ForFutures have looked to address local resident’s complaints about ASB from the hostel. This can be seen through the community meetings, engagement with partner agencies, the reporting system put in place, the extra staffing and CCTV improvements, and the PCSO patrols. Staff at the hostel monitor and take reports of nuisance and ASB and try to proactively respond.
  3. The Council must balance its duty in this case to investigate local residents’ complaints about ASB, and its housing duty to hostel tenants. It has suitable procedures in place to work with tenants who cause nuisance and ASB, including ending their tenancy. I appreciate local residents want stronger action against tenants, but that is a matter for ForFutures and the Council, or the police, to decide, not the Ombudsman.
  4. Under the relevant legislation and policy, the Council and ForFutures are entitled to try to resolve ASB informally. The policy confirms this may be done through mediation, so I do not criticise the Council and ForFutures for its approach. However, it should be mindful of the outcome a complainant wants and so should discuss the approach with them first.
  5. While I appreciate the Council and ForFutures wanted information to be shared at community meetings, and this was why it refused Miss X’s request, it is not fair to exclude residents who cannot attend. They have a right to be kept informed, particularly as Miss X is one of the residents complaining about ASB. The Council and ForFutures should be open and transparent about what action they are taking, unless there are confidentiality issues.
  6. Miss X was not the only local resident complaining about ASB from the hostel, so I do not criticise the Council or ForFutures for trying to address the issues holistically. However, they should have been more mindful of the support needs of individual complainants, as set out in the ASB policy.
  7. I can therefore appreciate why Miss felt she was not listened to, and why she felt the Council and ForFutures did not follow its policy about supporting victims of ASB or making sure their support needs are met. I have not seen evidence the ASB policy was followed in this regard, or that Miss X was asked what outcome she wanted, or offered any individual feedback. That was fault.
  8. Miss X said her right, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, to peacefully enjoy her home has been breached by the noise from the ASB. That is not something the Ombudsman can decide. However, I do not consider there is evidence the Council failed to consider the impact on residents or their right to peacefully enjoy their homes. As above, the Council had to balance its duty to local residents and its duty to tenants.

Back to top

Injustice

  1. The Council and ForFutures’ failure to properly engage with Miss X to offer individual support or feedback meant she was put to added time and trouble in bringing her complaint.
  2. The Council has gone some way to addressing the injustice by agreeing to circulate agendas before future meetings, so residents who cannot attend can raise issues for discussions, and by being flexible about meeting times.
  3. The Council should consider going a step further by providing residents with feedback from the meetings as well, including about any agreed or future action. It is also important the Council, or ForFutures, give feedback to complainants on an individual basis after they report an issue, and that support is offered so the Council and ForFutures understand what outcome a complainant is seeking.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although we found fault with the actions of the ForFutures, we have made recommendations to the Council.
  2. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 to recognise the added time and trouble she was put to as a result of its fault.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. We found the Council was not at fault in the way it investigated reports of ASB, or in the measures it put in place. There was fault when it did not provide individual support or feedback to Miss X. It agreed to provide a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings