Summary: There was fault in the Council’s written communication. The Council served a Community Protection Warning after Ms X made complaints about anti-social behaviour from her neighbour but did not tell Ms X when it withdrew this warning. There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action after recommending mediation. The Council’s apology remedies the injustice to Ms X from failing to keep her properly informed.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Ms X, complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint about antisocial behaviour from her neighbour. In particular, she complains the Council:
• failed to fully understand the seriousness of her complaint and the impact it has had on Ms X and her family
• failed to properly investigate her complaint
• failed to keep to its complaints process timescale.
2. Ms X says the Council's failings has caused her significant distress, anxiety and exposure to noise during the day and at night.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Ms X and spoke to her on the telephone.
6. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Ms X and the organisation 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

The law

8. Community Protection Notices (CPN) are issued by both councils and the police. The recipient of a CPN has the right to appeal it to the Magistrates’ Court within 21 days. They can be issued for any Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB). Before issuing a CPN, the council must first have given the recipient a formal written warning, with a timescale for compliance (Community Protection Warning (CPW)).
9. A CPN should explain what the recipient needs to do to avoid causing or continuing to cause ASB. This can include things the recipient must start doing as well behaviour they must avoid. CPNs can run indefinitely, and failure to comply is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

Key facts

10. Ms X first contacted the Council in February 2020 about the noise from her neighbours garden ornament and her neighbours behaviour. Ms X did not want to continue the complaint then.
11. Ms X contacted the Council again, with a log of incidents in September 2020 and the Council’s ASB officer visited her. The Council became aware that both Ms X and her neighbour had made allegations about each other to other bodies. Ms X says that the noise from the garden ornament remained a problem and stopped her having a decent nights sleep.
12. The Council issued a CPW to Ms X’s neighbour in November 2020 and visited her in December 2020. Ms X’s neighbour refuted the allegations and said she would like to try mediation to resolve the dispute with Ms X.
13. The anti-social behaviour officer withdrew the CPW. This was because there were allegations and evidence from both neighbours, so he felt either both parties should be issued with a CPW or neither. He decided that neither party should receive a warning as it may hurt their careers and that mediation was the best option. The Council contacted the housing association (as it was shared ownership housing which was part-rented) to ask it to facilitate mediation in January 2021. Ms X refused mediation. Ms X says that she is very concerned that she does not know what allegations have been made against her.
14. The Council has said that it has received no further allegations of anti-social behaviour it can investigate from either party. It has told Ms X that noise recordings she sent were not a statutory nuisance and so it will not take her case further. It has also said that it has received a complaint from Ms X’s neighbour about Ms X but this was not investigated.

My analysis

15. I have looked at all the information sent to me by the Council. This information includes all the correspondence sent by Ms X and Ms X’s neighbour and the Council’s file notes. While I cannot share this information with Ms X, as information about her neighbour is confidential, I have looked at all of it.
16. The Council explained that at the time Ms X made her complaint it did not have a procedure for investigating complaints of ASB. However, it does now have a procedure so this does serve as a guide to how the Council could have responded.
17. The Council’s ASB policy says that stages of an investigation are:
• Interview the complainant (i.e. Ms X).
• Send advisory letter to the alleged perpetrator.
• Speak to potential witnesses/other agencies.
• Speak to the perpetrator.
• Monitor, take action or close.
18. The Council’s website says that in response to a complaint, initially an officer will visit the complainant and send an initial warning letter to the alleged perpetrator. If the problems continue, once a nuisance is witnessed, the Council will look to serve an abatement notice or a CPW/CPN.
19. In response to my further enquiries the Council has clarified that ‘it does not have an advisory letter prior to a CPW being issued for ASB. The CPW is the first point of call officers will take as it is a warning letter based on hearsay alone and does not need evidence. A CPN does need evidence and has a right of appeal’.
20. The Council accepts there is a dispute between Ms X and her neighbour. It accepts the dispute has had an impact on Ms X and her neighbour’s lives. I can find no evidence the Council has not thoroughly investigated Ms X’s complaint.
21. In this case, the officer issued a CPW before speaking to Ms X’s neighbour or witnessing a nuisance. The Council then withdrew the CPW after the ASB officer heard the neighbours version of events.
22. After the CPW was withdrawn, the officer reviewed the evidence and reached a decision that it was not appropriate to continue to serve a CPW, as it would need to be served on both Ms X and her neighbour due to the allegations from and against both parties. The officer decided that in this case the most appropriate way forward was mediation between both parties and this was offered to Ms X and her neighbour. As Ms X has refused this, unless there are new incidents reported no further action would be taken. I can find no evidence the officer has not considered all the available evidence before making a decision not to pursue the complaint further.
23. Ms X complains specifically about the Council’s decision to withdraw the warning letter sent to the neighbour. I do not agree there was fault in the Council’s decision to withdraw the CPW. The officers reasoning for withdrawing the CPW and suggesting mediation seem to me to be a properly reasoned decision.
24. In response to my further enquiries the Council said ‘having reviewed the case we are in agreement that Ms X should have been written to when the Council withdrew the CPW. This email should have outlined the reasons why and explained the cross allegations made against Ms X. The Council can appreciate that Ms X was perhaps given false expectations in that a CPW was issued but after the full picture became known we felt that neither party or both parties required a CPW to be fair. The Council went with the first option and decided mediation was the best outcome for this case’.
25. I can see why Ms X complained the officer told her there was enough evidence to send the warning letter but then changed his mind. Equally, I can see why Ms X’s neighbour challenged the CPW as it was sent before the officer spoke to her and he had not got the views of all sides. I do not consider there was fault in the Council officers decision to withdraw the CPW. It is a decision the officer was entitled to make and it was done so, aware of all the available information.
26. The decision to serve the CPW may have raised Ms X’s expectations and the Council accepts that it should have written to her at the time it withdrew the notice so that she was aware of what had happened. The Council’s written communication with Ms X was poor and the failure to tell her in writing the CPW was withdrawn was fault. It was not significant fault as it did not affect the Council’s decision on taking action, but the Council has accepted that its communication could have been better. I do not consider Ms X has suffered significant injustice, as the result would have been the same if the fault had not occurred. But, I can see the fault led to Ms X being unsure what was happening and I do consider the Council should apologise as a remedy for this.
27. Ms X says the police have advised that she does not engage in mediation. However, the Council’s files show an email from the Community police officer asking ‘what would happen if Ms X and/or her neighbour do not agree to mediation?’. So, I cannot see evidence the Police have told the Council in writing that mediation would be unsuitable. It is entirely up to Ms X whether she wants to undertake mediation, but the Council’s reasoning that only Ms X and her neighbour are affected so mediation would be the sensible way forward seems reasonable to me. The Council says ‘it is a dispute between the two neighbours rather than one party affecting the whole neighbourhood’.

Council’s complaints process

28. Ms X also complains about the Council’s complaints process.
29. Ms X made a complaint to the Council on 8 April 2021. The Council acknowledged the complaint the next day and said it would aim to respond on 22 April. The Council asked Ms X for more information on 13 April and she replied with a brief message. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage one complaint on 18 May 2021 after Ms X sent a reminder email. The Council apologised for the delay in responding. Ms X made her stage 2 complaint on 23 May and the Council responded on 18 June 2021.
30. I have no evidence there was significant delay or fault during the complaints process. The Council apologized for an initial delay and responded to the stage two complaint in a reasonable time. While it may have taken the Council slightly longer than its published timescales to respond to the stage one, I do not consider that taking 6 weeks to reply to an official complaint is such a significant delay that I would consider the Council to be at fault. This is especially the case as the Council responded promptly when Ms X sent a reminder email and apologised for the delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council apologises to Ms X for not telling her in writing the CPW had been withdrawn within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld as I have found evidence of fault. The Council’s apology remedies this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman