Preston City Council (20 007 718)

Category : Environment and regulation > Antisocial behaviour

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 16 Jun 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: there is no fault by Preston City Council in relation to its handling of Mr B’s reports of anti-social behaviour close to his home

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, says the Council failed in its duty to prevent crime and disorder in a park close to his home with the result that criminal and antisocial behaviour including drug dealing and use of motorcycles occur in the park and in his road adjacent to it. He also complains that the Council has failed to prevent the spread of Giant Hogweed or maintain the boundaries around the park and this has resulted in antisocial behaviour spilling into the street and causing disturbance.

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. 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

  1. I discussed the complaint with Mr B and considered the written information he provided with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
  2. Mr 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

Relevant background

  1. In its comments the Council provided a description of the area in which Mr B lives which I will recount briefly here as it is useful for understanding the context of Mr B’s complaint.
  2. Mr B’s home is on a privately owned road. At the top of the road there is a gate to a park which is open to the general public. There are a number of other entrances to the park and cycle routes through the park. The front gardens for the houses in Mr B’s road are separated from the houses by the private road and the end of the gardens are directly adjacent to the park. The Council says that the majority of the gardens can be accessed from Mr B’s road without the knowledge of the owner. The Council also says that there is no formal boundary along the boundary of the park and the gardens but it is heavily vegetated making access difficult.

What should have happened

  1. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as:

“(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person

  1. (b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
  2. (c) conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
  3. This could include drug dealing or drug use on streets, vandalism and damage to property.
  4. On-going anti-social behaviour may need intervention by organisations such as councils and the police. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on councils to take action to combat anti-social behaviour.
  5. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. If a complainant is dissatisfied with the response to a complaint at the first stage they can ask for the matter to be considered at the second stage of the procedure.
  6. Giant Hogweed is considered an invasive plant species which can cause health problems for humans and animals. The owners of land on which Giant Hogweed appears are required to remove it and prevent it spreading. Preston City Council’s website states the Council will remove Giant Hogweed on both private land and public land in its ownership. In relation to Giant Hogweed on private land it says it will inspect and may take enforcement action even if it is not spreading to make sure it is dealt with.
  7. The Community Trigger is a mechanism by which victims of persistent anti-social behaviour that has been reported to the council or police, have a right to request a multi-agency review. In Preston the Community Trigger can be used if an individual has complained to the Council or the police three times about separate incidents in the last six months and the individual believes no action has been taken.

What happened

Mr B’s complaint to the Council

  1. In summer 2020 Mr B complained to the Council that:
    • it had failed to repair railings between the garden and the park enabling people using the park to get into the gardens (including his garden);
    • motorcycle and quad bikes were being driven along the road and the road was being used by drug dealers which Mr B attributed to the council’s failure to properly maintain the road and ensure its appearance; and
    • it was failing to enforce traffic regulations in place to limit access to the road adjacent to Mr B’s to access only and this has a knock on effect on Mr B’s road as traffic volume was increased. This complaint would not be a matter for Preston City Council as it is not a highways authority.
  2. The Council provided its response at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in July 2020 stating:
    • Mr B’s concerns about the antisocial and criminal behaviour was mainly the responsibility of the police but that the Council regularly works with the police to address crime and disorder issues. The Council said it had its Environmental Health team has powers to deal with nuisance such as that being caused by motorcycles when they were referred to the Council by the police. The Council therefore advised Mr B to report such incidents directly to the police;
    • Mr B could report specific concerns of poor housing standards about individual properties to a named service and provided contact details;
    • it would plant “defensive plants” along the boundary running in to the park to try reduce people going into the gardens. It said it would do this as soon as it could obtain the plants;
    • it was meeting with the police regarding drug misuse in the area and recommended that local residents witnessing such behaviour also report this to the police;
    • the maintenance of the road was the responsibility of the owners of the road as it is privately owned;
    • planning consent is required for listed buildings on the road so if Mr B was aware of developments to properties that had not obtained the correct consent he could report it to the Council in order that it could consider whether or not enforcement action was required.
  3. Mr B was dissatisfied with the response and asked for further consideration at stage two of the complaints procedure. He included information about the incidence of Giant Hogweed in properties on his road. The Council provided a response at stage 2 in October 2020 stating:
    • it was working with the police to address anti-social behaviour;
    • it had completed planting defensive plants and wooden stakes to try to prevent motorcycles entering the park at points that are not entrances;
    • the general concerns about the maintenance of an historic area of the city had been passed to the Director of Development and Housing to ensure his awareness and so that it could be included for consideration of future resources; and
    • it was providing a link to report incidents of invasive non-native plant species and confirmed that the existence of Giant Hogweed had been passed to the relevant person at the Council.

Action taken by the Council further to Mr B’s complaints

Motorcyles

  1. The Council says that due to the design and character of the park motorbike access cannot be completely eliminated: it has several entrance points, is open to the general public and has cycle routes through it.
  2. In August 2020 a senior Council officer and a manager of the park met police. The outcome of the discussion was that the Council would plant more defensive plants and the police would enhance their patrols of the areas with particular regard to motorbike nuisance and anti-social behaviour. The defensive planting and placing of wooden stakes referred to in the Council’s October letter referred to above was completed in early September 2020. This was replaced with stronger fencing shortly after when the original wooden stakes were vandalised.
  3. The Council says it has considered closing the park at night but is unable to do so because:
    • it does not own the gate or the land the gate is on; and
    • its legal advisors confirm that closure of the park at night could lead to a claim for obstruction of the public rights of way through the park.
  4. In relation to Mr B’s request for CCTV on the road, the Council says it would be for the residents to consider and pay for this if they want it and it is unable to fund CCTV at the entrance to the park as the cost would be too high given there is currently no CCTV system in place there.

Giant Hogweed

  1. The Council was investigating the Giant Hogweed in April this year as it says because it was reported in Autumn last year intervention at that time would be less effective so the Council waited until Spring to address this further. Having inspected this the Council says it will consider whether it will require the landowner to take any action. The Council points out that Mr B has not specifically complained about action taken by the Council to deal with Giant Hogweed. He informed the Council of its existence as part of his request for a stage 2 consideration of his complaint last year.

Maintenance of the boundary between the park and Mr B’s garden and anti-social behaviour

  1. The Council has liaised with the police about the concerns Mr B has expressed about drug use. It says that in the first instance he should report incidents to the police for investigation.
  2. It says it cannot pay for the installation of a continuous fence along the full length of the boundary but has put in place sections of wooden fencing, defensive planting and established vegetation and considers this provides an adequate boundary.
  3. Its legal team is trying to establish the exact boundary between the park and the properties on Mr B’s road as this is currently unclear. It proposed defensive planting to try to prevent gaps to allow people in the park to enter the gardens. It says a number of locations have been fenced and planted and permission has been received from the owner of the property bordering the park to continue this work along that boundary.
  4. The Council says it has also improved the park landscaping below the gardens by opening the space up making it less attractive to those that may wish to partake in anti-social behaviour.

Mr B’s contention that the poor maintenance of properties on his road has resulted in the appearance of Giant Hogweed

  1. The Council says its Director of Planning and Housing passed on Mr B’s concerns about the maintenance of properties that were Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) to relevant officers. The Council confirms that having provided Mr B with details of how and who to report specific concerns to, he has not reported any.
  2. The Council says that it did visit a property in the road in 2019 following reports of poor maintenance in a HMO but upon inspection it was not in fact an HMO but a building converted into self-contained flats so the Council could not take action under any HMO related powers. The Council says a number of the flats are currently unoccupied so it expects repairs to be completed when they are in use but is monitoring in the meantime. It says a light on the pavement outside has been repaired to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

Was the Council at fault?

  1. The Council has taken action to try to address the anti-social behaviour Mr B has reported by liaising with the police as it is required to. This resulted in increased police patrols and it has advised Mr B to report incidents directly to the police who will refer back to the Council if necessary. The Council also tried to improve boundaries between the park and the road and gardens to limit access via other locations than the entrances. It has considered but cannot restrict access to the park at night and cannot introduce measures such as pedestrian only entrances as pedal cycles are entitled to access the park. It has considered Mr B’s request for CCTV but has decided it is not expedient to do so given the cost of this in the context of its limited resources. I find no fault in the action the Council has taken to deal with this but would remind Mr B that if he continues to experience and report problems and he considers the police or the Council fail to deal with these, he could request a multi-agency review under the Community Trigger process.
  2. In relation to the Giant Hogweed the Council’s website states the Council will deal with this promptly but says it could not treat it effectively in Autumn so will do so now. The Council has pointed out that Ms B has not yet complained to the Council about any failure to take action to deal with the Giant Hogweed and I accept this is the case. It is also the case that we would not usually investigate a complaint until the Council has already had the opportunity to consider and respond to it. I will not therefore consider this point further other than to note that the Council has undertaken to address this matter now and if it does not do so, Mr B should complain to the Council if he wishes to pursue the matter further.
  3. In relation to the boundaries between the park I consider the Council has taken action to address this by planting defensive species of plant along parts of the boundary and also putting in some fencing. It says the boundary is unclear in some areas and its legal team is trying to resolve this. When it does so the Council should ensure it addresses this issue again in those areas. I find no fault in the action the Council has taken to address this to date.
  4. As I have stated above we investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ and 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. For the reasons given, whilst I recognise that Mr B is dissatisfied with the action taken by the Council, I do not consider there is evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has considered Mr B’s concerns or that action it has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is no fault by the Council in relation to its handling of Mr B’s reports of anti-social behaviour close to his home.

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