Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly used the Anti Social Behaviour policy and sent a warning letter in response to his behaviour at its offices which has affected his health. There is no fault by the Council as it used its professional judgement to issue a warning letter in line with the published policy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly used the Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) procedure and sent an ASB warning letter in response to his behaviour at its offices that it considered unacceptable.
2. Mr X says this incident and ongoing issues have affected his health

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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 the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X went to the Council offices on 5 September 2022 after failing to get through on the telephone for over an hour. Mr X is a landlord and wanted to hand in information relating to council tax and the tenant vacating the property.
7. Mr X and the Council do not agree on what happened during his visit. However, it can be agreed there was interaction between Mr X, security guards and council officers which was confrontational.
8. Two weeks after his visit, Mr X received a letter from the Council. The letter was headed “Anti-Social Behaviour – Warning Letter” and said it was in relation to a serious incident reported by Council staff about Mr X’s behaviour. The letter said it had been alleged that when Mr X spoke with a member of staff he became very loud and was shouting. It said this was intimidating and upsetting for the member of staff involved. It said the behaviour is completely unacceptable and would not be tolerated. The Council said the incident had been recorded on the computer system shared with the police. It said the behaviour must cease immediately or the Council would take further action.
9. Mr X made a formal complaint. He set out his version of the incident. He also raised concerns about the Council including the incident on the computer system shared with the police. He asked the Council to review the CCTV recordings as it would support his version of events.
10. The Council responded saying it had considered the points Mr X made and had viewed the CCTV and discussed the incident with the staff involved. It said there was no evidence from the CCTV to support Mr X’s allegation that security staff tried to intimidate him. It says it saw Mr X shouting at the reception staff.
11. The Council said after the incident, the staff member involved completed a staff incident form which was then reviewed by the Community Safety Team. It said as this was not the first report of aggressive behaviour by Mr X, it concluded it was appropriate to issue a warning letter. It advised Mr X to contact the police directly regarding his concerns about the saved information.
12. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council said there was substantive evidence to support the allegation that his behaviour was inappropriate and likely to cause alarm or distress. It therefore considered the ASB warning letter was correctly issued in accordance with its policy.
13. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. When Mr X complained to the Ombudsman he had asked to view the CCTV footage but this had not happened. Since then, Mr X has been able to view the footage.

Analysis

14. The Council has two different policies which can be used in respect of unacceptable behaviour by members of the public. In response to our initial enquiries it sent a copy of a policy named Policy on the Management of Unacceptable and Violent Customer Behaviour. The initial response implied it had followed this policy when dealing with Mr X’s behaviour. However the information sent to Mr X indicated the Anti Social Behaviour policy had been used.
15. I appreciate that Mr X takes a different view to the Council regarding the incident. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to take a view on the actual incident and decide which version of events, Mr X’s or the Council’s, is the correct one. The decision on how to respond to the incident is a matter of professional judgement for the Council. However, where there is a published policy setting out how it should deal with incidents, then the Ombudsman will investigate how the Council followed and applied that policy. That is what I have done in this case.
16. I am now satisfied the Council used the Anti Social Behaviour Policy in this case. It says it had regard to both policies but decided to use the ASB policy because it considered Mr X’s actions caused alarm and distress to both staff members and members of the public who witnessed the incident.
17. The policy states that ASB can include a variety of behaviour which adversely affects an individual or community. It goes on to say the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 defines ASB as acting in a manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to an individual not of the same household.
18. The Council’s ASB policy mentions an incremental approach and that it aims to provide a consistent and proportionate response towards all perpetrators of ASB. It says a person can enter the incremental approach at any stage dependent on the severity of the incident reported and/or the timeframe since any previous incidents.
19. It then details five different stages: advice; warning; acceptable behaviour contract; mediation and enforcement. In this case the Council chose to respond to Mr X’s behaviour at the second stage, warning, and issued a letter. The Council states this is an informal method of dealing with ASB and uses the word “alleges” to describe the behaviour and impact of it on other people.
20. As explained above, it is not my role to take a view on whether Mr X’s behaviour met the threshold to send a warning letter, that is for the judgement of the Council. The decision to send a warning letter is in accordance with the ASB policy and so I cannot conclude it was fault for the Council to do so in this case.
21. Mr X also raises concerns about information being recorded on a system shared with the police. The Council has confirmed information about this incident has been recorded on this system and will be retained for six years. The Council says that after Mr X raised concerns about police personnel seeing this information the Council offered to “cloak” the report which means it can only be accessed by designated people. It says Mr X did not wish to pursue this. I accept this is Mr X’s choice but I would hope this could still be actioned if Mr X changes his mind.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in how the Council responded to the incident at the Council offices.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman