Summary: The Council was at fault for how it responded to Mrs X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. This caused injustice as Mrs X says she continues to experience anti-social behaviour and she cannot be sure the Council properly considered her concerns. The Council agreed to carry out the actions in this statement to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council handled and investigated her reports of anti-social behaviour from her neighbour.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated how the Council responded to Mrs X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. I have not investigated how or whether the Council considered any tenancy enforcement actions against the alleged perpetrator as this falls under the management of social housing.

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. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

7. As part of this investigation I considered the information provision by Mrs X. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X over the telephone. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Ms X and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

8. Section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (2014 Act) defines anti-social behaviour as conduct:
• That has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
• Capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
• Capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. The 2014 Act introduced new powers for councils, the police and other bodies to tackle anti-social behaviour. Councils may apply to the courts for a civil injunction or make a Public Spaces Protection Order.

Community trigger

10. 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.
11. 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.

Noise nuisance

12. Councils have a legal duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances, including noise. For a noise to amount to a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use of enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health.
13. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
14. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

What happened

15. There has been extensive correspondence between Mrs X and the Council since March 2022. In this section of the statement I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
16. In March 2022, Mrs X contacted the Council and reported anti-social behaviour from a neighbour, Mr Y, who lived on her street. This included behaviour such as allowing his dogs to bark outside for long periods in the day and evening, allowing his children to play loudly outside late at night, threatening other neighbours on the street, damaging other people’s vehicles and growing cannabis from his property. Mrs X explained this behaviour had been ongoing for several years and since Mr Y moved onto the street.
17. On 15 March 2022, Mrs X had a telephone call with a Council officer about the anti-social behaviour. The Council officer said they ended the call as Mrs X was abusive. On the same day a local Councillor sent an enquiry to the Council on Mrs X’s behalf to report the anti-social behaviour. The local Councillor said Mrs X was very ill with cancer and this behaviour was causing her severe distress.
18. On 16 March 2022, the Council’s ASB team logged an incident report for Mrs X’s concerns. The ASB team also spoke with another neighbour who reported concerns about dog barking and noise from the children late at night from Mr Y’s property.
19. The Council discussed the reports of ASB with Mr Y on 17 March 2022, however he denied the allegations were true.
20. In April 2022, another neighbour reported dogs barking through the day and night from Mr Y’s property. In May 2022, the ASB team sent diary sheets to the two neighbours who had reported loud and persistent dog barking. It also carried out a letter drop to other residents.
21. On 9 May 2022, Mrs X raised a formal complaint with the Council. Mrs X complained the Council had not taken action to address her reports of drug dealing, threats of violence and noise from Mr Y’s property.
22. The Council responded to the complaint on 12 May 2022. The Council said:
• Following the concerns Mrs X reported to the Council, its Neighbourhood team, ASB team and the Police investigated the issues. A deployable camera was installed in 2021 following allegations of drug dealing from the property. However, no evidence was captured to support this claim.
• It carried out a letter drop, to ask residents to report any incidents of ASB in the area. The Council said it had not received any reports other than the ones received from Mrs X.
• Its officers are aware of the family and of Mrs X’s safeguarding concerns. They will work closely with supporting agencies to ensure any issues are addressed. The Council said it would continue to support the family to adhere to their tenancy conditions.
23. On 14 May 2022, there was an incident between Mrs X’s husband and Mr Y about the ongoing noise from Mr Y’s property. Mrs X’s husband knocked on Mr Y’s door to tell him about the noise issues. The Council visited Mr Y at his property. The Council told Mr X that he could not reserve parking on the street and to make sure his children and dogs were inside by 8pm.
24. In late May 2022, the Council received reports of ASB from another neighbour about Mr Y. The Council passed this to the ASB officer who was investigating the allegations. The ASB officer also spoke with the two other neighbours who had reported noise caused by dogs barking and they confirmed this had not improved and was still happening late at night.
25. In June 2021, the ASB officer chased up the two other neighbours it had sent diary sheets to as they had not returned these to the Council.
26. On 23 June 2022, Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at the next stage of its complaints process as she was not happy with the outcome at stage one.
27. In early July Mrs X contacted the Council about the noise from Mr Y’s dogs barking.
28. On 15 July 2022, the Council provided its final response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said:
• It opened an ASB case in March 2022 and this case was still open. The Council said it was considering the evidence and information it received and would take appropriate action.
• It would manage the ASB case and keep Mrs X updated until its conclusion.
• It could find no evidence officers failed to act appropriately when responding to the reports against Mr Y and the response was proportionate.
29. On 18 July 2022, there was an incidence between Mr Y and Mrs X’s husband on the street. Mrs X reported that Mr Y threatened her husband with violence and to get his friends round to sort him out. The Council interviewed Mr Y on 20 July 2022. Mr Y said he was chased around his motorhome. Mr Y said he admitted to saying he would have friends round but said this was not going to happen as he would be away from home.
30. In late July 2022, Mrs X contacted the Council to report Mr Y’s dogs were barking and when her husband asked him to stop them he responded aggressively.
31. In August 2022, Mrs X was in contact with a charity who told her to request the community trigger. Mrs X emailed the Council and asked for it to activate the community trigger. Mrs X said she should have been told about the community trigger.
32. The ASB officer looking into the concerns about Mr Y contacted Mrs X’s neighbours and said they would be closing the case as they had not received diary sheets back. Following this one of the neighbours returned some diary sheets. The Council told this neighbour too much time had passed from the dates recorded on the diary sheets and sent them out new diary sheets. The Council explained these needed to be completed promptly so it could assess what action was necessary.
33. In September 2022, the Council considered whether its Environmental Health team should open a case to consider whether Mrs X’s reports of noise from Mr Y were a statutory nuisance. The Environmental Health team said it would not open a case as the housing team were better placed to deal with it. The Council later communicated this to Mrs X.
34. On 7 September 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X to set out its position on the following matters:
• The Council said it would activate the community trigger and consider her request for this and give her a decision.
• The Council said it had attempted to meet with Mrs X in March, July and August 2022.
• The Council said it had concluded Mrs X’s service complaint and she should bring this to the Ombudsman if she wanted to take it further.
• In relation to the incident in July 2022 between Mr Y and Mrs X’s husband, the Council said the footage it saw of the incident showed Mrs X’s husband approach Mr Y aggressively and block Mr Y’s access to his property.
• The Council said it was still investigating complaints about noise from Mr Y’s dogs barking. The Council said its Environmental Health team would also contact Mrs X separately about this.
• The Council said Mrs X used threatening and abusive language in a telephone call with a Council officer in March 2022 and in email correspondence in July 2022. The Council said it would manage Mrs X’s contact if she continued to behave like this.
35. In October 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X and said the community trigger threshold had not been met. This was because the Council considered it had taken appropriate and proportionate action in response to the complaints about ASB. The Council also said the investigation was still open. The officer assessing whether the community trigger threshold had been met made the following recommendations about how the ASB investigation should proceed:
• The Council could arrange for a police officer to contact Mrs X about mediation if she wanted to take this up.
• Suggested the officer investigating the ASB offered Mrs X the noise app and other residents who complained.
• The Council should consider a community protection notice or breach of tenancy warning if there is enough evidence of ASB.
36. In November 2022, Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision on the community trigger. Mrs X spoke on the telephone to the officer who made the initial decision on the community trigger and sent in several emails outlining her concerns. The main points of these were:
• The Council never provided Mrs X with diary sheets as part of its ASB investigation.
• The Council did not offer Mrs X the noise app as part of the ASB investigation.
• Mediation was never appropriate due to Mrs X’s illness and was never offered to her at the start of the investigation.
• Mrs X believed the ASB case was closed and was never made aware it was still open. Mrs X said she received no follow up from the officer investigating the ASB.
• Mrs X was unhappy with the Environmental Health team’s decision not to consider whether the noise was a statutory nuisance.
37. In December 2022, Mrs X reported Mr Y was growing cannabis in his property and there was a strong smell of this. The Council passed this information onto the police and also carried out a site visit where the officer did not record a smell of cannabis. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said it could only make limited progress in relation to her concerns about cannabis at Mr Y’s property as she would not engage with the ASB officer who was investigating the case.
38. On 23 December 2022, the Council wrote to Mrs X with its decision on the review of the community trigger. The Council upheld its original decision and said Mrs X’s case did not meet the threshold as the actions the Council had taken were reasonable and proportionate.
39. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Mrs X said the ASB is still occurring from Mr Y, however the noise is worse when it is dry as his children are more likely to be outside and Mr Y leaves his dogs outside.

Analysis

40. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which a decision was made.

Mrs X’s reports of ASB

41. The Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s reports of ASB about Mr Y. Firstly the Council did not provide Mrs X with diary sheets as part of the ASB investigation. The evidence shows the investigating officer gave other complainants diary sheets but did not provide these to Mrs X to complete. In addition there is no evidence the Council considered providing Mrs X with diary sheets or any facilities to monitor and record the ASB. This was a missed opportunity from the Council to gather further evidence of the extent and type of behaviour being complained about.
42. Secondly, the Council also did not offer Mrs X the noise app. The decision on the community trigger recommended this as a way forward to progress the investigation, however it is not clear whether the Council has actually offered this to Mrs X. Again this is a further missed opportunity to gather supporting evidence about the behaviour Mrs X and others were complaining about.
43. While the Council did visit Mr Y during the investigation about his alleged behaviour, it was at fault in how it communicated with Mrs X. The Council told Mrs X, in its stage one complaint response, that no other complaints had been received about Mr Y and she was the only one complaining, however this was not the case. In addition, I cannot see that Mrs X had been adequately updated through the investigation from March 2022 onwards. When the Council told other neighbours it had closed the investigation in August 2022, it did not tell Mrs X. Yet then in a letter to Mrs X in September 2022 it confirmed the investigation was still ongoing. Mrs X did not know what was happening with the Council’s investigation and this has caused a breakdown in trust between Mrs X and the Council.
44. The Council also told Mrs X its Environmental Health team could not consider her reports of noise and housing would be better placed to deal with it. This was fault. As a result, the Council has not considered whether the noise Mrs X and others reported amounted to a statutory nuisance. If the Council were to decide there was a statutory nuisance caused by Mr Y, it could take further action.

The community trigger

45. Mrs X said the Council did not properly advise her about using the community trigger. The Council’s website does display information about using the community trigger along with a link to request the Council consider activating this. I am satisfied the Council was not at fault here.
46. In Mrs X’s review of the Council’s decision not to consider her case at an ASB review she raised several points about the Council’s response to her reports of ASB not being proportionate. These included not being provided with diary sheets or the noise app, not receiving any follow ups from the officer investigating the ASB and being told the Environmental Health team could not consider her reports of noise. The letter the Council sent to Mrs X on 23 December 2022 upholding its original decision not to progress to a ASB case review does not address any of these points. As the Council’s reasoning for the case not meeting the community trigger threshold was that it had taken appropriate and proportionate action to look into Mrs X’s reports of ASB, I would have expected the review officer to have mentioned these points. Mrs X cannot therefore be certain the Council has adequately considered her objections.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. Within two months of my final decision the Council agreed carry out the following:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the faults identified.
2. Pay Mrs X £300 to acknowledge the distress caused and missed opportunities to gather evidence of any ASB.
3. Write to Mrs X setting out the current position on the anti-social behaviour case detailing what it intends to do to progress this.
4. Offer Mrs X assistance with recording any anti-social behaviour (i.e. diary sheets, noise app) so she can provide clear records of the behaviour to the Council, and it can assess whether it should take any action against the neighbour.
5. The Council’s Environmental Health team should investigate Mrs X’s reports of noise in order to consider whether these amount to a statutory nuisance.
6. Re-consider whether Mrs X’s case meets the threshold to meet the community trigger. When coming to a decision, the Council should evidence it has adequately considered Mrs X’s objections in its decision.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s reports of ASB. This caused injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman