Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to take effective action to resolve problems of anti-social behaviour from residents of a near-by traveller’s site, which was causing her ongoing distress. We cannot find fault with the action taken by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that East Riding of Yorkshire Council (the Council) failed to take effective action to deal with antisocial behaviour from residents of a nearby traveller’s site (council-managed). She had endured months of harassment and distress as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs B 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

5. Mrs B has leased land from the Council for several years for horse grazing. She started to experience incidents of antisocial behaviour in 2020, she believes from residents of a nearby traveller site managed by the Council.
6. In early May 2020 she and her son were threatened with a knife and spat at by some of the travellers. One of them also assaulted her son. She called the police and reported the incident to the Council. She reported a second incident later that day. The officer responsible for managing the site (Officer C) telephoned Mrs B the same day and said he would liaise with the police.
7. The police said without any further evidence it was unable to prosecute but it asked Officer C for assistance with giving advice to the alleged offenders to keep off the land. Officer C said he could not speak to the alleged offenders as they were not tenants of the Council, but he would send a letter to all tenants reminding them not to trespass on the adjacent land. He sent the letter on 15 May 2020. Officer C also suggested the police look at the CCTV on the site.
8. In June 2020 the Council offered further assistance to the police in their investigation and responded to an enquiry from Mrs B’s MP.
9. Mrs B contacted the Council again in July 2020 about ongoing problems. The Council suggested reporting all incidents to the police and contacting the Council’s legal team to enquire about the possibility of an injunction requiring the travellers to keep off the land. Mrs B thanked the Council for the advice and said the situation had settled down as the police issued a warning.
10. Officer C sent another warning letter to all residents at the end of July 2020 to keep off adjacent land and not use motorbikes.
11. At the beginning of August 2020 Mrs B reported further incidents of trespass on her fields causing damage to her fences and leading to one of her horses being injured. The police were patrolling the area and Mrs B asked what the Council could do to help.
12. The Council replied the next day asking if anyone was identifiable on the CCTV. It said Officer C would send another warning letter and liaise with the police to ensure any information about convictions was passed back to the Council.
13. Mrs B continued to experience problems and requested Officer C make contact with her. She said the situation had gone beyond letter-writing. Officer C was on leave but the Council said there was little it could do about trespass on her land as the issues she was reporting were police matters. The Council’s remit was limited to activities on the site. Mrs B felt the Council should be doing more.
14. The department responsible for leasing the land also contacted officer C to ask him to take action against the travellers as they believed officer C had CCTV images of the alleged perpetrators. Officer C replied to say that he did not have images but had assisted the police in gathering information after the incident in May. He said he had written several letters but had no power to do anything about the actions of unidentified people outside of the site.
15. Officer C spoke to Mrs B to discuss the problems. She was unhappy at the lack of action. Officer C explained that if tenants were convicted of offences off-site the Council could potentially look at breaches of their tenancy and possible eviction. But the police had not pursued the incidents due to evidential difficulties. He said he could not stop tenants leaving the site. But he agreed to re-secure the exit points on the site where the fencing was broken and if evidence was provided, he would look at further action.
16. In August 2020 Officer C asked the police to carry out a vulnerability assessment of Mrs B as he was concerned about the impact of the incidents on her. This came out at medium risk. He also sent her some diary sheets and discussed the case at a meeting with the police. They agreed to carry out a joint site meeting with Mrs B and Officer C in September 2020.
17. At the meeting, the Police reviewed the land, the fencing and the CCTV. Mrs B said she felt the travellers (from the nearby site and other sites in the area) were trying to intimidate her off the land so they could use it to graze their horses. She said there was frequent minor damage to her fencing but had no evidence it was the travellers. The images from the CCTV were not clear enough to identify the perpetrators. Officer C confirmed the fencing was regularly reviewed and repairs were in progress and he could not stop the travellers from leaving the site. He agreed to share the diary sheets with the police and consider whether there was any other available land to the rear of the travellers’ site for their horses.
18. Officer C sent another warning letter, highlighting the terms of the licence agreement and potential action if breaches were substantiated. He also forwarded the diary sheets to the police. Mrs B complained that the Council was taking insufficient action and the fence had not been repaired as promised. The Council chased this up.
19. Mrs B continued to send emails expressing her dissatisfaction and said Officer C had said his life had been threatened by the travellers. Officer C said his life had never been threatened but he had been verbally abused and threatened by some travellers in the past including from other sites. The point he was making was that it did not stop him from dealing with breaches of their licences.
20. In October 2020 Mrs B complained that she had not received any response to the diary sheets. The Council said there was nothing evidential which it could use to take further action. It could not keep the travellers on the site and it had received no other complaints.
21. Officer C liaised again with the police, but they confirmed there was nothing more they could do. They agreed to do another joint visit to the traveller site. The Council confirmed there was no other land available for the travellers to use.
22. Mrs B made a formal complaint about the lack of action to stop the anti-social behaviour. The Council replied detailing the action it had taken and explaining the limitations on what it could do. Mrs B escalated her complaint to the next stage. The Council replied upholding its previous response and directed Mrs B to the Ombudsman.
23. Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman. She said she had spent £1800 on installing CCTV and had to sleep with her horses for a week while it was installed.

Analysis

24. I understand it must have been distressing for Mrs B to experience these ongoing problems of anti-social behaviour. However, I cannot identify any fault in the actions the Council took in response to her complaints.
25. The Council responded to her communications promptly on every occasion. It liaised with the police, arranged multi-agency meetings, visited her and the traveller site on several occasions, issued warning letters, looked at the CCTV, inspected and repaired the site perimeter fences, assessed her vulnerability and looked for land for the travellers to use.
26. Unfortunately, the problems have continued but I cannot say that is due to a lack of action by the Council. It has also explained that in the absence of any clear evidence of fault by one of their tenants, it cannot take any further action. It cannot stop the travellers from leaving site and since the incident in May, the police have been unable to identify any perpetrators.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mrs B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman