Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate anti-social behaviour from his neighbour. The Council was at fault for failing to consider all available options, for delaying looking into support for the alleged perpetrator, and for failing to regularly send Mr X’s CCTV evidence to the estate agent who managed the property the alleged perpetrator rented. The Council agreed to provide a remedy for the uncertainty its faults caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate anti-social behaviour from his neighbour. Specifically, he complains about inaction, lack of communication, failure to consider his evidence, and failure to respond to his formal complaint.
2. Mr X said the anti-social behaviour had a serious effect on his standard of living and the mental health of him and his children.

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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Crime and Policing Act 2014.
• Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers. Statutory guidance for frontline professionals (published July 2014, revised June 2022).
• The Council’s Statement of Policy and Procedures for Anti-social Behaviour (September 2020).
6. Mr 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

Relevant Law and guidance

7. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
8. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we are unable to investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
9. The 2014 Act introduced six new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:
• the power to issue community protection notices (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a specified period of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which can be made upon application by the local authority or other agencies);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.
10. Councils and the police can issue Community Protection Notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a negative effect on the community's quality of life, and which they decide is unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not repeated. Failure to comply is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
11. A CPN can be appealed in the Magistrates' Court within 21 days by the recipient if they disagree with the council’s decision.

Council policy

12. The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy states officers will work closely with victims, perpetrators, and their families to address unacceptable behaviour and ensure that parents take responsibility for the behaviour of their children.
13. The Council’s process involves working closely with officers from other agencies, including the police, and making referrals to family and social care services wherever possible.
14. The Council considers formal enforcement action a last resort. First, its officers work with perpetrators to access support services when required and encourage perpetrators to become involved in diversionary activities.
15. The measures the Council may take include:
• Warning letters, interviews (with parents and perpetrators), behaviour contracts and agreements.
• Fixed penalty notices.
• Parenting orders, abatement notices, civil injunctions, PSPO and criminal behaviour orders.
• Closure orders.
• Assisting landlords with possession proceedings against a tenant.

What happened

16. I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
17. Mr X experienced ASB from his neighbour’s children since about June 2020. His neighbour’s children are both under ten years old.
18. Mr X first reported the issue to the Council in July 2020. He complained his neighbour’s children were verbally abusive and damaged cars on the street. He also said they threw things into his garden, trespassed, left rubbish on his property, and caused noise nuisance. He said he contacted the estate agent who managed the property. They confirmed others had complained, and suggested he contact the Council.
19. Mr X reported further similar incidents to the Council in August. A Council officer, who I will call Officer A, contacted Mr X on 24 August. Officer A asked for Mr X’s neighbour’s details so the Council could write to them. Officer A also said he would ask street wardens to patrol the area.
20. Mr X reported further similar incidents to the Council in September. He also gave Officer A the estate agent’s contact details.
21. Officer A spoke to the estate agent on 23 September. The estate agent confirmed they had spoken with Mr X’s neighbour about the issue and hoped this would improve things.
22. Mr X sent photographs to the Council of his neighbour’s children’s belongings left on his garden and driveway in December. He said they treated his property like a playground.
23. In February 2021, Mr X said street wardens spoke to his neighbour, but were ignored. He said his neighbour’s children continued to use his property as a communal area, causing damage and leaving rubbish. He said he was going to install a camera.
24. Officer A said the Council would issue his neighbour a warning also work with the police and estate agent.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X’s neighbour on 19 February, about alleged ASB and breaches of COVID-19 social distancing rules. The Council said there were reports the neighbour’s children caused unacceptable damage to residents’ property, and the Council and police were monitoring. It said any repeat would lead to further action.
26. On 21 February, Mr X reported his neighbour’s children were throwing stones. He said the estate agent did not seem bothered, so he preferred to go through the Council.
27. Officer A thanked Mr X for sending CCTV evidence. He said the Council would do a letter drop asking for evidence from other residents. The Council wrote to residents on 8 March.
28. Another resident telephoned the Council in response to its letter. They reported damage to cars and garages from Mr X’s neighbour’s children throwing stones, toys left in the road, playing in the road unsupervised, and drunken rowdy behaviour from the children’s parents.
29. Officer A updated Mr X on 16 March. He said the Council was putting together a case which his neighbour’s landlord would need to address. The Council wrote to the estate agent with details of the incidents.
30. The estate agent told the Council it spoke to Mr X’s neighbours several times and gave the Council’s letter to the landlord. The landlord instructed them to serve an eviction notice on Mr X’s neighbours. The estate agent hoped this would encourage Mr X’s neighbours to leave or stop the ASB.
31. The estate agent contacted the Council on 15 April to advise the eviction notice it served was defective, as it did not give the required notice period of six months because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the estate agent said it warned Mr X’s neighbours they may take court action about the ASB.
32. Officer A asked Mr X if things had improved since the eviction notice. Mr X said he did not see the point reporting more incidents now. However, he asked if the Council could move a mattress and rubbish his neighbour dumped in the passageway between their homes at Christmas. Officer A said he would write to Mr X’s neighbour.
33. The estate agent emailed the Council on 25 April asking for evidence of ASB, because Mr X’s neighbour refuted the allegations. They asked the Council what warnings it issued and if it took formal action. The estate agent was concerned Mr X’s evidence of litter, children playing, and trespassing, was not serious enough to warrant serving an eviction notice.
34. Officer A told Mr X the estate agent was not being as helpful as hoped, so the Council was looking at enforcement action. Officer A visited Mr X on 10 May, after taking advice from the Council’s legal department. He told Mr X the evidence was not serious enough to take enforcement action. Mr X gave Officer A permission to send his CCTV footage to the estate agent.
35. A different officer, Officer B, telephoned Mr X on 16 June. They said Officer A was off sick. Officer B offered to visit Mr X the next day.
36. At the visit, Mr X told Officer B he had a great response from Officer A, but heard nothing since he was off sick, He said further incident of ASB occurred, including bananas thrown over his fence. Mr X saw this as race hate. Officer B agreed to look into Mr X’s complaint.
37. The Council sent a second warning letter to Mr X’s neighbours on 21 July about more reports of ASB. The Council said it wanted to work with Mr X’s neighbour and signposted them to support services.
38. Mr X complained to the Council on 27 July 2021 about its handling of ASB on his street. He said the issue had been ongoing 15 months since his first contact with a neighbourhood safety officer in April or May 2020. He said the officer agreed there was ASB.
39. Mr X said the behaviour he complained about from his neighbour included:
• Excessive late-night noise.
• Looking into and trying to open his car.
• Leaving toys and other items on his garden and driveway, blocking access.
• Throwing items, including toys, bricks, stones, and bottles, over his back fence. This included a banana, which PA considered was racist abuse.
• Playing football on his drive and garden, kicking balls against his door and windows.
• Children driving electric scooters in the road and throwing stones.
40. Mr X said he installed CCTV at the Council’s advice, so has evidence of what happened. He said he sent over 50 emails and 130 CCTV clips to the Council, but it made no progress and let him down. He understood the original case officer was ill but said the Council should have reassigned his case.
41. Officer B contacted the Council’s legal department for advice on 6 August. An internal email from the Council’s legal department states there is not much action the Council can take, because Mr X’s neighbour’s children are very young. They said Mr X may need to take legal advice and it was a matter for the landlord to resolve.
42. On 10 August, Officer B contacted the estate agent but was unable to speak to the relevant person. Officer B also liaised with the police about Mr X’s neighbour’s children shouting racist abuse. The police advised Mr X to report this to them.
43. Officer B then telephoned Mr X to tell him the Council could not take legal action based on the evidence. However, Officer B said the Council would continue to support Mr X reporting matters to the police and the estate agent. Mr X was unhappy. He said the Council knew about the issue for 18 months and only then told him it could not take action.
44. Officer B spoke with the Council’s social care department about working with Mr X’s neighbour to educate them on abuse and nuisance.
45. A Council officer, who I will call Officer C, emailed Mr X on 11 August about his formal complaint. Officer C said the Council was affected by staff absences caused by the pandemic and he asked Mr X to telephone him to discuss the issues.
46. Officer C emailed Mr X again after their phone call. He said he would speak to another officer in Officer A’s absence, to see if the Council had enough evidence to issue a Community Protection Notice.
47. Mr X emailed Officer C on 16 August for an update. He asked if the Council could serve an injunction.
48. Officer C discussed the case with Mr X’s new case officer, Officer B. Officer B said the Council’s legal department advised:
• The Council cannot serve a CPN to someone under 16 and cannot serve one against a parent for their child’s behaviour.
• The Council cannot make an injunction for someone under 10 and they did not consider the Court would grant one against the child’s parents. They also considered this would be harsh.
• There is not enough evidence for the Council to close the house.
49. Officer B said he looked at education for the family. He also considered mediation, but Mr X declined this.
50. The estate agent emailed the Council on 23 and 24 August. They said they served an eviction notice on Mr X’s neighbour, and they must vacate by 23 December. The estate said it may be possible to serve a notice for repossession due to ASB, but this relied on formal action from the Council or police.
51. The estate agent said it was concerned to hear the Council considered it kept them informed. They said they only received a handful of emails from the Council and nothing in terms of evidence detailing the nature or extent of the issues Mr X experienced. The estate agent said they consistently asked the Council for evidence, and if it had supplied CCTV they could have addressed the issue earlier.
52. In September, Mr X sent more CCTV footage of ASB. Officer B spoke to the police, and they agreed to meet Officer B for a visit with Mr X’s neighbour. Officer B telephoned Mr X to confirm this.
53. On 11 October, Mr X reported his neighbour’s children were not keeping off his property and racially abused him.
54. Mr X wrote to the Council on 12 October. He was unhappy with the service he continued to receive. He said he registered his complaint three times and was still waiting for the Council’s response.
55. The Council wrote to Mr X’s neighbour on 22 October, asking them to stop their children going into neighbouring gardens and driveways.
56. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 25 October. It said it had extensive involvement and communication with him, including visits, and provided assistance where possible. It also said it kept him informed of its actions.
57. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and signposted him to the Ombudsman.

My investigation

58. Mr X said the ASB started two years ago. His neighbours have been evicted by their landlord, but the Council should have done more, and it should not have taken so long.
59. Mr X said Officer A was helpful but when he went on leave no one got back to him or updated him.
60. Mr X told me he gathered evidence of racist abuse, but neither the police nor Council acted because they could not identify the perpetrator. Mr X does not consider enough was done to question neighbours or look for witnesses.
61. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me it did not receive any specific complaints from other residents about ASB from Mr X’s neighbour.
62. The Council said it updated Mr X and considered his emails. Three officers picked up the complaint while the case worker was absent due to ill health.
63. The Council said the investigation ended after Mr X contacted the estate agent managing the house where his neighbour lives. They served an eviction notice on Mr X’s neighbour and they no longer reside there.

Analysis

64. I did not find the Council showed an unwillingness to act or help Mr X. I have seen evidence of the Council visiting Mr X and keeping him updated, arranging street warden visits, sending warning letters to the perpetrator, removing rubbish, liaising with the police, visiting neighbours, contacting the estate agent, and seeking advice from its legal department.
65. The Council’s legal department said it could not act against children under 10, and the courts were unlikely to agree formal action (such as an injunction) against the parents. Those are professional judgements and I therefore do not criticise the Council for its decision not to take formal action.
66. However, I consider the Council should have been able to tell Mr X relatively soon after he first reported ASB that it could not take formal action against children under 10. This information is readily available in the relevant law and guidance.
67. Once the Council established this, it could then have considered other options available to it, like parenting contracts or referrals to other services for education and support.
68. While the Council did consider support for the perpetrator’s family, I have not seen evidence this was properly pursued until August 2021, over a year after Mr X’s first report of ASB. That took too long and amounts to fault.
69. I have not seen evidence the Council considered behaviour or parenting contracts, despite these options forming part of the Council’s own policy and procedure. That was fault. I do not say the Council should have pursued such action. That is for the Council to decide. It is the failure to consider such action which amounts to fault.
70. Mr X complained about lack of updates or contact when Officer A was on leave.
71. I found Officer A was last in touch with Mr X around 10 May. A different officer, Officer B, contacted Mr X on 16 June and then took on the case. That is a gap of just over a month without contact. In circumstances where Officer A was off sick and the Council did not know when he would return, I do not consider that to be unreasonable or excessive delay.
72. The estate agent suggested it could have acted sooner if it had received Mr X’s CCTV evidence straight away. I am mindful of the fact the estate agent did issue an eviction notice in April, about three months after Mr X installed CCTV. It was not the Council’s fault this notice was defective and could not be enforced.
73. The estate agent served a new eviction notice in August 2021, after Mr X sent it more CCTV evidence. Mr X thought the Council was sending his CCTV evidence to the estate agent, because he had agreed for Officer A to do so. Unfortunately, that was not the case. The Council had Mr X’s agreement to send CCTV evidence to the estate agent and should have continued to do so. That amounts to fault.
74. There is uncertainty about the impact of the Council’s fault, however. I consider it is likely the eviction notice could have been re-issued sooner if the Council sent the estate agent more CCTV evidence. In turn that may have meant Mr X’s neighbour moved out sooner. But that is speculative, and I cannot be certain. Mr X will always have the uncertainly of thinking but for the Council’s failings the injustice caused by his neighbour could have been ended sooner. That is his injustice.
75. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2021 but did not get a final response until October. That was too long and was fault. I appreciate this would have been frustrating for Mr X. However, The Council continued to work with Mr X in the meantime, so I do not consider there was significant injustice in this regard.

Back to top

Agreed action

76. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for failing to consider all available options, for delays looking into family support for the neighbour, and for failing to regularly send his CCTV evidence to the estate agent.
• Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the uncertainty its faults caused.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to consider all available options, for delaying looking into support for the alleged perpetrator, and for failing to regularly send Mr X’s CCTV evidence to the estate agent who managed the property the alleged perpetrator rented. The Council agreed to provide a remedy for the uncertainty its faults caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman