Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to follow proper process in considering her request for a Community Trigger. There were failings in the Community Trigger process which amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complained the Council failed to follow proper process in considering her request for a Community Trigger. In particular she complains the Community Trigger Panel did not involve her in its review of her ASB case, and instead relied on inaccurate and incomplete information from police and council officers.
2. Miss X also complained the Council delayed in implementing the Panel’s request for noise recording equipment to be installed at her property for a further two week period.

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 complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Miss X; and
• Miss 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

Community Trigger

6. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
7. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
8. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. Any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police, is not in our jurisdiction.

The Council’s community trigger threshold

9. The Council’s community trigger review terms of reference states the threshold to instigate a community trigger is where three separate qualifying complaints have been made to the Council, Police, Clinical Commissioning Group and/or registered Landlord regarding anti-social behaviour and where complaints have not been appropriately addressed or no action taken.
10. It defines qualifying complaints as:
• the complaint is made within one month from the date on which the anti-social behaviour is alleged to have occurred
• an application for an anti-social behaviour case review has been made within a six-month period from the date of the alleged behaviour.

What happened here

11. Miss X is a private tenant in a block of flats. She has previously complained to the Ombudsman about the way the Council investigated her complaints of noise nuisance from the occupants of the flat above her own. We found no evidence of fault in the way the council responded to and dealt with Miss X’s reports of noise nuisance. This investigation will not reconsider the issues raised in Miss X’s previous complaint but will focus on the subsequent community trigger process
12. Miss X made a community trigger request in May 2022. Her request confirmed she had reported three separate incidents in the last six months and no action had been taken. Miss X stated these incidents occurred on 12 May 2019, 12 May 2021, and 23 July 2021. She stated threats were made against her and there was an attempt to break into her home in August/ September 2021. She had also been traumatised, victimised, and harassed by anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance during the day and night.
13. The Council arranged a community trigger panel meeting on 16 May 2022 to discuss Miss X’s request. It notified council and police officers of the meeting and asked them to complete response forms with details of the incidents they were aware of and the support/ response provided. I have not received copies of any completed forms.
14. The records of this meeting show an officer from the Anti-social Behaviour Team set out how the Council had investigated Miss X’s complaints and confirmed they had not established any anti-social behaviour.
15. The police also updated the panel. The notes state Miss X made a high volume of 999 calls to advise her neighbour was deliberately targeting her and making threats. The police had not identified any threats, and this neighbour had since moved. The police had spoken to the new tenant who said they were out most of the day working. In addition, the police confirmed other neighbours had not heard any noises and there was no evidence to confirm Miss X was being targeted.
16. Following the meeting, the Chair of the panel wrote to Miss X advising there was no evidence to substantiate Miss X’s allegations and she did not therefore meet the threshold for a community trigger intervention. The Chair also noted the noise recording equipment had not to date provided any supporting evidence. They confirmed that they had however requested noise recording equipment be installed for a further two weeks and the recordings reviewed.
17. Miss X was disappointed with the outcome and did not consider there had been a fair and through investigation. She questioned who attended the panel meeting and what information was presented. Miss X maintained she had provided anti-social behaviour officers with substantial evidence which they were reluctant to consider. And questioned whether the panel had reviewed the additional evidence she had provided. Miss X asked for her complaint to be reviewed by a new panel.
18. In addition, Miss X identified three Council officers previously involved in her case and asked that they were not involved in installing the noise recording equipment at her home.
19. In early July 2022 an officer, Officer 1 contacted Miss X to arrange the installation of the noise recording equipment. Miss X asked for a different officer to arrange the installation. Officer 1 checked with a senior officer and advised Miss X that as they were the last leading officer on her case it was not appropriate for another officer to install the equipment. Officer 1 told Miss X they would shortly be on annual leave and would contact her again on their return.
20. Miss X asked that the recording equipment be installed for a month as a shorter period would not be enough to gather evidence of the noise nuisance and harassment. The Council confirmed this was not possible and it could only install the equipment for two weeks. Miss X then suggested the equipment be installed for two weeks each month in order to establish a pattern of noise nuisance. She also provided details of her availability over the following two weeks.
21. In late August 2022 Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council about the delays in installing the noise recording equipment. She considered she had been victimised and that Officer 1 had deliberately delayed and had no intention of installing the equipment.
22. Officer 1 contacted Miss X again at the end of August 2022 to apologise for the delay in installing the noise recorder. They explained this was due to low staffing levels and the officer who was due to install the recorder was now on annual leave. Another officer would now install the equipment and was available the following day. This was not convenient for Miss X and the recorder was installed on 5 September 2022. The Council then collected the equipment on 20 September 2022.
23. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 6 September 2022. It noted the Council had gone above and beyond in trying to assist her but there was no credible evidence of noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour. The Council explained there were three officers in the anti-social behaviour team and Miss X had requested that two of these officers did not install the noise recording equipment. This had meant it had taken longer than anticipated to install the noise recording equipment. The Council confirmed any new evidence recorded by the noise recorder would be thoroughly reviewed and assessed.
24. Miss X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. The Council responded on 21 September 2022 and noted that the majority of the issues Miss X was raising had already been considered by both the Council and the Ombudsman. It confirmed it would not reopen Miss X’s earlier complaint.
25. The Council apologised for the delay in installing the noise recording equipment and reiterated this was due to the limited number of staff in the anti-social behaviour team.
26. Having reviewed the recordings Officer 1 wrote to Miss X in early October 2022 advising that they did not identify any excessive noise. Based on the lack of evidence of noise nuisance the Council would not be taking any further action.
27. Miss X maintains the Council has not properly considered her concerns and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. Miss X feels she should have been invited to the community trigger panel meeting and asserts the information provided to the panel by the anti-social behaviour team and police was misleading and incorrect.
28. In response to my enquiries the Council states it is not the Council’s practice to invite complainants to attend the community trigger panel. The aim is for the independent chair to discuss and review what actions have been considered and taken by the involved agencies. The panel will review how the agencies have responded and make recommendations on how the problem can be resolved.
29. The Council states that in Miss X’s case there was no evidence provided by the agencies or Miss X to indicate any anti-social behaviour. It asserts Miss X was unhappy with the responses to her earlier complaint and had used the community trigger to appeal the complaint decision, which is not the correct process.
30. Government guidance say the community trigger procedure must include a process for the victim to appeal. The Council has not provided any details of its appeal process. It states the appeal process is under review.
31. In addition the Council refutes Miss X’s assertion that the Council relied on incomplete or inaccurate information. It states officers went above and beyond in attempting to assist Miss X, but there is no evidence of a statutory noise issue existing at this property. The Council notes that neither the police nor the building management company witnessed any issues.
32. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence the Council offered to reinstall the noise recording equipment. The Council acknowledges there was a delay in re-installing the noise recording equipment. And has reiterated this was due to the small number of staff in the team and Miss X’s request that two of the three officers did not install the equipment. This further period of recording did not provide any evidence of noise nuisance and the anti-social behaviour team now considers the matter closed.

Analysis

33. Based on the documentation provided I consider there are failings in the Council’s community trigger procedure.
34. The procedure for carrying out a case review is set locally. Government guidance requires relevant agencies to agree a procedure that suits the needs of victims and communities in their area. Each local area set the threshold to be met for the trigger to be used. Where the threshold is met the local procedure should set out the timescale for the review.
35. The Council does not have a published community trigger procedure document. But information on its website sets out the threshold for activating the community trigger and the information a complainant would need to provide. It also confirms that having received a community trigger a review panel will ask the agencies involved to provide details of their reports and the actions they have considered and taken. There will then be a review panel meeting to discuss the anti-social behaviour and the actions considered and taken. The Council does not however provide any timeframes for the review process.
36. Miss X believes the Council should have invited her to the review meeting or at least contacted her in advance of the meeting to discuss her concerns. There was no requirement to invite Miss X to the review meeting but government guidance is clear that this should always be considered. The guidance also states it is good practice to have somebody involved in the case review to represent the complainant.
37. The Council has confirmed its practice is not to invite complainants to attend panel meetings. I consider this blanket policy of not inviting complainants to review meetings is at odds with the statutory guidance and amounts to fault.
38. However, I cannot say that but for this fault Miss X would have been invited to the meeting or that the outcome would have been different. The requirement is only for the Council to consider whether to invite complainants. Had it done so, it may have determined it was not necessary for Miss X to attend.
39. The community trigger procedure must also include a process for the victim to appeal if they are dissatisfied with the way the case review was carried out, or with the decision on whether the threshold was met.
40. There is no reference on the Council’s website or in its terms of reference to any appeal process. The Council states its appeal process is under review but has not provided any evidence of the current process or details of the review. In the circumstances I am not persuaded the current local community trigger procedure includes an appeal process. And am in any event concerned that Miss X was not informed of her right of appeal.
41. Whilst the failure to include an appeal process is fault, I note that Miss X has had the opportunity to express her dissatisfaction with the process and outcome via the complaints process. This should not however be viewed a substitute for the required appeal process and we would expect the Council to review the procedure and include an appeal process for future reviews.
42. I also note that although the panel did not consider Miss X met the threshold for the community trigger, it nevertheless recommended a further period of noise monitoring. It is unfortunate that the re-installation of this equipment was delayed for several months. I accept this was in part due to Miss X’s request that certain officers were not involved in the installation. But the documentation shows there were also periods of inactivity on the part of the Council. The panel recommended further monitoring in mid- May 2022, but the Council did not contact Miss X to arrange the installation until early July 2022. Miss X provided details of her availability but the equipment was not installed until early September 2022. I consider there was an element of avoidable delay which amounts to fault.
43. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Miss X a significant injustice. While I am unable to conclude that but for the fault the outcome would have been different, I consider the Council’s failings have caused Miss X distress and frustration and have put her to unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve this matter.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £200 to recognise the distress and frustration she has experienced and time and trouble she has been put to as a result of the fault in the community trigger procedure and the delay in installing noise recording equipment.
45. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.
46. The Council has also agreed to review the local community trigger procedure, in conjunction with the relevant local agencies, to ensure it is in line with the statutory community trigger guidance. This should include providing timeframes for the review process; the need to consider inviting complaints/ a representative to review meetings and how this consideration should be evidence; and provide an appeal process.
47. The Council should take this action within three months of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

48. There were failings in the Community Trigger process which amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman