Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Mr and Mrs X’s reports of antisocial behaviour. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained the Council has not taken action to tackle antisocial behaviour on a woodland behind their property. It has not worked with other agencies including the police, and it has not initiated the community trigger process despite criteria being met. This has caused Mr and Mrs X distress and they have paid for cameras. They want the Council to take steps such as recognising the footpath as a public right of way, preventing unauthorised use of the area and placing enforceable signage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr and Mr X have made several reports to the Council about their neighbours’ behaviour, which they say is antisocial. The behaviour they reported included the alleged perpetrators sitting on chairs in the private road, a car causing obstruction and a dog fouling. The land is owned by a housing provider, which declined to act when Mr and Mrs X asked it to. There is no right of way on the land in question.
7. In May 2022, Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to initiate the community trigger process, which is a way of reviewing how agencies have responded to persistent reports of antisocial behaviour. The Council declined to use the process.
8. I have seen Mr and Mrs X’s reports to the Council, including pictures, and I have considered evidence the Council provided of the steps it took to consider the issues Mr and Mrs X reported. It consulted the other involved agencies, including the police and the housing provider. It considered the circumstances relevant to the reports. The Council decided the reports did not show any obstructions, antisocial behaviour or risk to the public. It decided the community trigger threshold was not met. These are decisions the Council was entitled to make and there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to those decisions.
9. I cannot criticise the Council’s decision that what Mr and Mrs X reported did not constitute antisocial behaviour. Mr and Mrs X have not provided any compelling evidence that leads me to believe it would be a good use of public resources for us to investigate their complaint, and it is not in the public interest to investigate.
10. In any event, we cannot require councils to register new rights of way. It is open to Mr and Mrs X to apply to the Council’s rights of way team and, if dissatisfied with the response, appeal its decision to the Planning Inspectorate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council came to its decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman