Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider evidence he and other residents provided about anti-social behaviour taking place in a car park near his property. He further complained the Council failed to follow government guidance and did not update its community trigger review protocol. Mr X said this matter has caused him and other residents significant stress and inconvenience. There was no fault in the Council’s investigation into the anti-social behaviour. There was fault in the Council’s failure to publish its community trigger review protocol. This caused Mr X inconvenience and confusion. The Council has agreed to update its website and process so that the protocol it is following is clear.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on his and other resident’s behalf that the Council failed to properly investigate the evidence he provided showing anti-social behaviour taking place at a local car park.
2. He further complained the Council failed to update its community trigger protocol to reflect updated government legislation.
3. Mr X said this matter caused him and other residents significant stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Mr X and discussed his view of the complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included Mr X’s complaints summary, statements from members of the community group, complaint correspondence shared between Mr X and the Council and the community trigger panel meeting minutes.
8. I wrote to the Council and Mr X with the details of the draft decision. I considered the comments I received before I wrote the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law

9. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in law (section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
10. Councils share responsibility to investigate and prevent ASB with local police, clinical commissioning groups and social housing providers.
11. The 2014 Act gives councils the power to:
• issue community protection notices;
• make a public spaces protection order;
• close premises for a specified period of time; and
• apply to the courts for a civil injunction.

Community Trigger Protocol

12. The 2014 Act introduced the Community Trigger process to give victims of anti-social behaviour the opportunity to have their case reviewed by the Council. The victim could be an individual or a community group.
13. To meet the community trigger threshold the incident needs to:
• cause harassment, alarm or distress;
• be logged within one month of the incident; and
• the most recent incident occurred within the last six months.
14. Upon accepting a review request the relevant bodies should discuss the case together and share information.
15. They should consider the action they have previously taken and whether they require any further information, then propose a response.
16. If they consider there is further work to be done, they should make recommendations and agree an action plan. They should then share the outcome with the complainant.
17. The Community Trigger Procedure should allow the complainant to request a review of the way their application for a Community Trigger has been dealt with and the way in which the review was carried out.
18. Councils should publicise the local Community Trigger process in a clear and accessible way. It is not an alternative complaints process. It is designed to ensure authorities consider if there is more they can do to protect a complainant from ASB in the present and future.
19. There is no formal process for an ASB investigation. Councils should handle each case according to its merits.
20. The protocol in place at the time these events occurred did not allow victims of ASB to appeal the Council’s decision. The protocol is currently being updated to reflect government guidance which states victims should be given right of appeal.

What happened

21. Mr X and several residents became unhappy about noise disturbance and other ASB taking place in a local car park and formed a community group. An employee from the Council’s enforcement department visited Mr X and several other residents to discuss the matter in September 2020.
22. In November 2020, Mr X sent the Council a report detailing the ASB and activated the Community Trigger process. The Council confirmed the threshold had been met on 10 December 2020.
23. On 17 December 2020 an online review panel meeting took place. The Panel was comprised of several parties including Council environmental health and enforcement officers, local police officers and Mr X.
24. Mr X spoke for 30 minutes and presented letters from the other residents describing the impact of the ASB. Mr X said the ASB would reduce if the Council closed the car park at night.
25. Representatives of the Council said closing the car park would move the issue to another area and deny other residents use of the car park. They said it would cost the Council a significant amount of money and enforcement officers who visited the site did not find evidence of ASB. They suggested installing lighting and noise monitoring equipment at the site.
26. In January 2021, the Panel put forward an action plan to address the ASB over several months, which recommended:
• an environmental health officer to attend the car park several a times a week in the evening to monitor the car park;
• explore installing lighting in the car park;
• distribute warning letters; and
• review CCTV footage.
27. Mr X wrote to the Council in February and March 2021 to request a copy of the Council’s Community Trigger protocol. The Council provided this information on 1 February and 7 March 2021. Mr X said the Council failed to provide a copy of the Panel’s decision and did not give him or the other residents an opportunity to comment on the Panel’s findings.
28. The Council told Mr X the existing protocol gave complainants the opportunity to respond to the draft decision either by email or in writing but did not offer a formal right of appeal. The Council confirmed it was updating its protocol to reflect the government’s recent change of approach and told Mr X he could appeal the decision.
29. A case review appeal meeting was held on 7 May 2021 after Mr X exercised his right of appeal. A further review Panel also took place on 22 June 2021. The residents discussed the impact the ASB was still having on them. During the meeting a Council employee said the video footage of the site did not correspond with reports of ASB made to 101. Mr X and the other residents attending the meeting were offended by this statement. The police officers and environmental health officers agreed the ASB issue remained and showed support for closing the car park.
30. The Panel sent Mr X a revised action plan which recommended a further review of CCTV footage and asked the Council to consider closing the car park at night. The Council installed ramps and cuts outs near the parking bay and said it would consider installing speed monitoring equipment and funding additional equipment to deal with the anti-social behaviour.
31. In October 2021 the Council sent enforcement managers to monitor the site and discuss the issue with the residents. The Council’s records state enforcement officers did not find evidence of the ASB.
32. The Council held a meeting on 3 November 2021 to discuss whether to close the car park at night. The Council ultimately decided to maintain its earlier decision to keep the car park open.
33. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s actions and made a complaint. He said the Council did not allow residents to submit videos documenting the ASB. He said various environmental health officers, police officers and MPs supported closing the car park at night and the Council had given conflicting reasons for why it could not do so. He was also unhappy with the revised Action Plan.
34. The Council escalated Mr X’s complaint to Stage 3 of its complaints process on 20 December 2021. The Council explained there were concerns about data protection and how the footage was obtained but it did not dispute the authenticity of the video footage and considered it as evidenced by the meeting minutes. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and said it had considered the Action Plan and it found it reasonable.
35. Mr X brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. He has advised the ASB has reduced but is still an issue.
36. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed it had received 150 101 calls about the ASB in 2021 and 4 101 reports in 2022. The Council said it had implemented overt and covert patrols of the site, installed hedges, placed speed humps and offered to install noise monitoring equipment. The Council said closing the car park would require enhanced patrols to prevent access, displace the issue to other nearby car parks and potentially require installing a one-way exit, which would be expensive.
37. The Council said it stopped plans to install lighting and enhanced CCTV due to lack of financial resources, but it will continue to work with local police to address this issue.

Findings

38. Mr X complains the Council did not properly investigate the evidence provided. The guidance requires the Council to take a collaborative approach with the appropriate bodies to identify and address ASB and its impact on the residents. The evidence shows the Council sent environmental health officers to the site on several occasions and offered to install noise monitoring equipment at the site. The Council installed speed bumps and reviewed CCTV footage along with video evidence provided by the residents. The Council spoke with the residents to discuss the situation and worked with other groups to address the issue. The Council did not agree the evidence showed a clear ASB issue on occasion and gave clear reasons for this. The evidence shows the instances of ASB reports have significantly decreased in line with the measures taken by the Council. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision if the evidence shows the Council followed the correct process. The Council’s actions were in in line with what we would expect. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.
39. Mr X complains the Council failed to update its Community Trigger review protocol in line with updated government guidance. The guidance requires the Council to publicise the Community Trigger protocol in a clear and accessible way. I can see the Council is still in the process of updating the protocol and there is no copy of the Community Trigger review process on its website. This is fault. Mr X experienced inconvenience and a lack of trust in the Council’s process due to this. We expect the Council to follow the guidance and retain a clear and accessible outline of the Community Trigger protocol for public use.
40. Mr X has expressed unhappiness that one of the Council employees present during the panel meeting implied the 101 reports were not genuine. I have reviewed the evidence and I can understand Mr X’s point of view. I stop short of calling this fault as on balance, I consider the comments were made in relation to the lack of evidence supporting the 101 reports rather than as a personal attack. Even if I were to find fault with this point, I consider any injustice experienced by Mr X or the residents is minimal.

Back to top

Agreed Actions

41. Within three months of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to update its website with a clear outline of the Community Trigger protocol.

Back to top

Final decision

42. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its investigation into the anti-social behaviour Mr X reported. There was fault in the Council’s failure to publish its Community Trigger protocol and the Council has accepted my recommendations for how to remedy the injustice this caused Mr X. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman