Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly deal with complaints she made about noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. We found there was fault in the way the Council handled the situation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly deal with complaints she made about noise and antisocial behaviour by her neighbour. She complains the Council made errors and failed to take action to safeguard her family (particularly her adult children) who have disabilities.
2. Mrs X explained the situation has been very difficult, distressing and stressful for the family, and her children have had their use of the garden restricted because of their neighbour’s behaviour.

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. We are investigating the complaints that Mrs X has raised. However, we do not intend to investigate issues that occurred before January 2020. This is because we generally expect complaints to be brought to us within 12 months of someone being aware of them. We have exercised discretion to consider events back to 2020.
6. We are not investigating actions the Council has taken under its powers as a Registered Social Landlord. This is because we do not have jurisdiction to do this.
7. The Ombudsman also cannot investigate the start or conduct of any court proceedings or comment on what happened in a court of law.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the complaint she made and information she provided. I asked the Council for information, and I considered its response to the complaint. I considered the recording of a meeting Mrs X provided.
9. This statement is intended to be a summary of key events, not a full chronology of everything that has happened.
10. We have noted that the Council has taken some actions in its capacity as a registered social landlord. Key actions taken as a landlord have been noted in this statement, as they may be relevant to the Council’s consideration of anti-social behaviour powers. However, we have not investigated the action the Council took as a registered social landlord. This is because our jurisdiction does not allow us to investigate these actions.
11. Mrs 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

Anti-Social Behaviour Powers

Community protection Notices (CPNs)

12. Community protection notices (CPNs) are designed to stop a person or organisation committing antisocial behaviour (ASB) which spoils the community's quality of life. A CPN can be issued by council officers, police officers, police community support officers (PCSOs) or sometimes, social landlords.
13. A CPN can be issued where someone persistently behaves in a way that is unreasonable and has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the local area.
14. A CPN should explain what the recipient needs to do to avoid causing ASB. This can include positive requirements; things the recipient must start doing to avoid ASB. CPNs can run indefinitely, and failure to comply with them is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.
15. Before a CPN can be issued, a written warning must be given stating that a community protection notice will be issued unless the person’s conduct changes.

Civil Injunctions

16. Councils (and other organisations) can apply to the courts for an ASB Injunction. As Injunctions are decided by the courts, the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction does not allow us to consider how the Council conducted itself in any relevant court proceedings.

Closure Orders

17. An application can be made to a magistrates court to close a premises on the grounds that there has been disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour associated with the premises which causes a serious nuisance. An Order can prohibit access to a premises by all persons or just persons the order specifies. It can also limit access at all times or just the order specifies.

The Community Trigger

18. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a mechanism for alleged ASB victims to request a review of the handling of their case by the ‘relevant bodies’. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’. The relevant bodies for the Community Trigger process are the local council, police, clinical commissioning group, and social housing providers. We can only consider the part the Council plays in this process.
19. Upon accepting a review request, the relevant bodies should discuss the case together and share information. They should consider action previously taken, whether they need more information, and prepare a response. If they consider further work should be done, they should make recommendations and agree an action plan. Guidance recommends a level of independence in a review.

The Council’s ASB Policy

20. The Council’s policy sets out how ASB reports can be made. It states the Council will acknowledge reports and contact complainants regularly to update them on progress. If the Council finds there is no further action it can reasonably take, it will explain the reasons for this. The policy sets out the formal and informal powers available and states it may take formal or informal action dependant on the circumstances in each case. It sets out the Council’s ASB powers. It also notes that formal action may be taken by the Council acting as a landlord, for example seeking possession of a property.
21. The Council says it holds an ASB Forum (a monthly multi-agency meeting for ASB practitioners). This is to discuss new and ongoing ASB cases, monitor interventions that are in place and share practice.
22. The Council’s policy defines particular terms. These include Disability Harassment; ‘the undignified treatment, ridicule or exclusion of people with disabilities’.
23. The policy states that the Community Trigger Process is available and it provides brief details of it. The policy also sets out how a Community Trigger Review can be requested.

Background

24. As at January 2020 Miss X had reported anti-social behaviour by her neighbour (referred to as Mr B in this statement) for a number of years. Our investigation covers events from January 2020. Mrs X has adult children with Aspergers and other health issues.
25. The Council stated, as at January 2020 it had taken ‘all available early intervention measures’. These included informal discussion and meetings with Mr B to discuss the problems and give advice and sending warning letters. The Council evidenced that a risk assessment had been conducted in 2019.
26. In July 2019 the Council issued a Community Protection Warning Notice. It listed behaviours Mr B should cease.
27. The warning notice stated, if Mr B did not comply with any requirement it set out, a CPN may be issued without further warning. Failure to then comply with a CPN could lead to forfeiture of items, default works and/or a fine of up to £2,500.
28. The Council issued a CPN in November 2019. This only related to one of the requirements of the CPN Warning. It did not refer to Mr B’s general behaviour.

What Happened

29. A multi-disciplinary meeting took place in December 2019. The notes of this meeting indicate that incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) were ongoing. The minutes described an incident where Mr B had screamed in Mr and Mrs X’s faces and abused them. Mr B was also alleged to have been abusive and mocked Mr and Mrs X’s disabled son. The minutes noted Mr B had contacted the police about the same incident, reporting Mr X had threatened him. The minutes considered asking Mr B for his CCTV footage about the incident, but decided against this to prevent further backlash against Mr and Mrs X. They also noted other recent incidents of Mr B invading Mr and Mrs X’s privacy.
30. The attendees discussed how to deal with the matter. The discussion included the potential for seeking an injunction against Mr B or a closure order. The notes of the meeting listed agreed actions. These included obtaining witness statements, making a safeguarding referral and serving a notice seeking possession. The actions also stated the police officer in attendance would ask an Inspector for ‘special schemes’ on the address. This is where the police would agree to prioritise calls from Mrs X’s property.
31. Following the meeting, the Council decided that an injunction would be the most appropriate way forward. The Council told us that it decided against a closure order because this would have been heard just before Christmas and would have resulted in not just Mr B being locked out of his property, but his wife and two children who had not caused any issues. This was considered disproportionate as the incidents were caused by Mr B rather than the family as a whole.
32. An injunction hearing took place in mid-January which was adjourned until mid‑June 2020.
33. Between January and June 2020 Mrs X raised various ASB reports about Mr B. These including banging on the walls/fence and singing late at night, banging repeatedly when her son was in the garden and taking pictures of the family.
34. In June 2020 an injunction hearing was provisionally scheduled for August 2020. The court directed witness statements to be submitted and a full schedule of evidence to be sent to Mr B by 22 July.
35. In August 2020 Mrs X made further reports of ASB to the Council. It put these to Mr B. Mr B also made allegations of ASB from Mr and Mrs X.
36. In late September 2020, the police received a 999 call from Mr B in which he alleged Mrs X was strangling her daughter. The police attended Mr and Mrs X’s property late in the evening as a result of the call. This was distressing for the family, particularly their children. Mr and Mrs X explained their children’s disabilities. The police were satisfied no such incident had taken place.
37. A multi-disciplinary meeting took place in early October. At the meeting the police stated they would serve an ASB Warning to Mr B the following day. Subsequent correspondence confirms this was done. The police told the Council its records had noted the call from Mr B was likely to have been malicious.
38. In November 2020 at a multi-disciplinary meeting, the attendees noted that Mrs X had made general ASB reports but there had been no more specific incidents. At the meeting it was agreed that a Notice Seeking Possession would be served.
39. In December 2020 the Council received a report of anti-social behaviour in the street by Mr B.
40. In March 2021 the court heard the injunction case. The court adjourned the hearing. It issued an interim Injunction which prevented Mr B from looking into, shining a light into or filming or photographing Mr and Mrs X’s house or garden. I am aware that Mrs X subsequently raised concerns about the handling and outcome of the hearing. As these are issues about the conduct of court proceedings, we cannot include them in our investigation.
41. In June 2021 the Council held a multi-agency review of Mrs X’s case. It does not hold any records of this.
42. In October 2021 at a multi-disciplinary meeting, the attendees (which included Mrs X) discussed the court hearing and the issues that occurred. The police also addressed queries about their actions. They agreed to provide a single point of contact. The Council recognised that while some of the incidents reported may seem low level, everything put together represents extreme harassment over a prolonged period and the whole impact needed to be considered. The Council apologised to Mrs X for errors the Council made in handling the case. The Council stated, in hindsight, a partial closure order should have been requested at the outset rather than the injunction proceedings the Council decided upon. At the meeting the Council took the decision to cease its injunction proceedings. It stated it would quickly follow up this action with a Notice Seeking Possession.
43. I understand the interim injunction from March 2021 ceased on the date the Council ceased the injunction proceedings.
44. On 18 October the Council hand delivered a letter to Mr B to tell him the injunction proceedings were not being pursued.
45. On 19 October Mrs X made further ASB reports of Mr B banging on their walls and filming her.
46. On 25 October the Council served a Notice Seeking Possession to Mr B. The Council also arranged to meet Mr B to put Mrs X’s most recent ASB reports to him. It wrote him subsequently.
47. In December 2021 Mrs X reported noise and loud music from Mr B. At the end of December, both Mrs X and Mr B made complaints to the Council about a parking dispute. The Council discussed the December incidents with Mr B and wrote to him.
48. In April 2022 the Police agreed to review the 999 call Mr B had made in September 2020 and agreed to confirm to Mrs X their earlier actions.
49. As part of its communications with Mrs X in early 2022 the Council says it provided diary sheets for her to record ASB incidents. Mrs X told the Council these had not been provided before. The need for diary sheets appeared to be raised because, Mrs X had made some reports to another organisation. We asked the Council if these reports had been passed on for action. It confirmed they had. The Council emphasised that first hand reports of incidents made the best evidence, so the benefit of diary sheets was explained.
50. The Council told us it followed up further ASB reports from Mrs X with Mr B in early 2022 and let Mrs X know the outcome.
51. In June 2022 the courts held a possession hearing. The court gave directions to the Council and Mr B in anticipation of a further hearing being held.
52. In July 2022 the Council’s possession hearing was struck out by the courts. Following the decision, the Council proposed to Mr B that he consider a move to another property. This would be a fresh start. In mid-August 2022 the move was agreed in principle.
53. In early 2023 the Council discussed moves with Mr B.
54. In May 2023 the Council agreed Mr B can undergo work to his front garden. It agreed this with Mrs X before the work was done.
55. I understand Mr B moved out of the property in July 2023.

Mrs X’s complaints

56. Mrs X raised concerns about the way an ASB officer had dealt with her case. Amongst her concerns were that the officer had given her misleading information, not been open with her at times and mistakes had been made. I have not detailed the specific concerns in this statement as it would be too detailed.
57. The Council arranged a meeting to discuss this in January 2022. I understand this was an attempt to clear the air and allow Mrs X to move forward. We have listened to the recording of the meeting which Mrs X sent to us. The meeting was not effective and was ended after discussion around a number of the issues.
58. Mrs X raised a complaint with the Council on 14 March 2022. The Council responded to this on 11 April. Mrs X submitted a more detailed complaint asking for it to be escalated. The Council responded to this on 3 August 2022. In recognition of the errors the Council had made and the distress this caused it offered her a £250 payment.

Other issues

Communication

59. I note the Council held monthly meetings between professionals. These continued until July 2023 when it was recorded that Mr B had moved house. The notes of professionals meetings recorded that Mrs X received a call from officers at the Council every two weeks to keep in contact with her and offer a level of re‑assurance. Mrs X says this was not consistently the case and in some periods of the complaint it was Mrs X who initiated the contacts.
60. While I note that contacts may have been initiated by the Council during some of the periods of the complaint, and contact may not have been achieved as often as the Council had set out to, there is also some evidence the Council attempted to maintain a good level of ongoing dialogue. I appreciate the communication may not always have been successful.
61. I recognise that Miss X felt misled or that officers were late in providing information that she requested on occasions. It is difficult to reach any firm findings where there are disputes about what has been said by individuals at given times over a lengthy period of time. It would not be proportionate for us to try to resolve all the individual issues that Mrs X raised about misstatements or inaccuracies.
62. I recognise that Mrs X was unhappy about the way the meeting was conducted in January 2022 to discuss concerns she had about a particular ASB Officer. Mrs X says she was asked to lead the meeting which she found uncomfortable. The Council’s aim was to discuss the concerns with a view to moving forward more positively. In the Council’s complaint response the Council stated it had suggested that Mrs X lead the meeting, in the sense that she could raise the issues she wished to, but the officer concerned did not expect Mrs X to chair the meeting as such. He apologised for the distress and confusion his approach caused.

Safeguarding Alerts for children

63. At the meeting in January 2022 the issue of Safeguarding was raised. Mrs X commented that her vulnerable children had zero reassurance that their needs and safeguarding risks had been understood. At the meeting, the Council accepted that while safeguarding and risk had been considered as a whole (a whole family), a specific safeguarding alert had not been raised for Mrs X’s son. It was agreed it would be done as a result.
64. The Council accepted it could have done this sooner and apologised at the time and in its complaint response. It was later confirmed in May 2022 that safeguarding reports had been done for both children.

Advocate – Former Council Officer

65. In November 2021 Miss X asked the Council to copy an ex-council officer into correspondence about her case and they had agreed to be her advocate. The Council initially did this but then stopped. When Mrs X queried this the Council stated that because it was unusual, it had been referred to the Council’s governance team for advice. An officer stated to Mrs X he thought that being an advocate, having previously worked for the council could affect the ex-officer’s future employment and stated there would be some forms for them to sign.
66. In mid-December Mrs X told the Council that she had changed her mind about the officer acting as her advocate.
67. Mrs X complained that when the advocacy issue was raised, all focus shifted onto the advocacy issue and away from the other points she was raising. She felt the Council mentioning the officer’s future employment amounted to emotional blackmail to get her to change this.
68. When it responded to the complaint the Council explained that because the officer had been previously involved, the council sought advice from its legal team to ensure the case would not be jeopardised in court. It stated there was no intent on the council’s part to prevent the officer being Mrs X’s advocate.

What should have happened?

69. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the ASB issues that were being reported, whether it considered the various powers available to it and the information it took account of when deciding what action to take.
70. In this case, our jurisdiction has been limited for various reasons set out in paragraphs 5 to 7. Most notably because we cannot consider actions the Council has taken in its capacity as a registered social landlord and because we cannot investigate the conduct of court proceedings.
71. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did. With this in mind that I have considered Mrs X’s complaint.

Decisions and Use of ASB Powers

72. In 2020 the Council decided it should apply to the courts for an injunction against Mr B because of the ASB issues that had been reported. It chose this option rather than a Closure Order. A decision about which course of action to take is largely for officers to take, using their own professional judgement. We could only criticise a decision if there was fault in how the decision was reached. While an injunction was an appropriate option for the Council to consider, I found there was fault in the way it reached this decision. I say this because the reasoning that the Council provided for not pursuing a Closure Order was flawed. It told us that if a Closure Order had been pursued it would have affected Mr B’s whole family. This is not necessarily the case. The law allows the courts to issue a partial closure order which relates to individuals, not all occupants of a premises.
73. The Council recognised this in October 2021 when responding to Mrs X’s concerns about the Injunction proceedings. Had the Council better understood and considered the powers available to it in 2020, it is possible it would have taken different action.
74. Based on what the Council has told us, I also found that the Council failed to properly consider use of all of its powers. Rather, it tended to decide on one main course of action at a time. While the council wrote to Mr B and sent warning letters, it is not clear that the Council considered other powers it could use which may limit ASB in the meantime, such as issuing a CPN.
75. The Council issued a CPN Warning in July 2019. It is not clear why the continuing issues reported by Mrs X did not warrant consideration of a CPN after 2019. The CPN the Council issued dealt with only one specific issue, not the wider general behaviour of Mr B. Our focus report ‘Out of Order : learning lessons from complaints about anti-social behaviour’ notes that ASB cases are complex and officers need to properly consider the full range of powers available to them.
76. The Council had evidence of ASB which warranted an injunction, and while it was pursuing injunction proceedings between January 2020 and October 2021, Mrs X made further ASB reports in January, March, April and August 2020. The Council does not appear to have given consideration to issuing a CPN while the injunction hearings were awaited. This is particularly relevant given there were delays in receiving court dates (which were outside the Council’s control). This equally applies after the Council took a different approach in 2021/2022, albeit it appears less incidents were being reported for the majority of that period.
77. I have found there was fault by the Council for not keeping use of all of its powers under consideration.
78. I note that in September 2020 Mr B made a call to the police which it regarded as malicious. An ASB Warning was issued by the Police in October 2020 following the malicious call Mr B made.
79. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint notes there were errors in managing her case which officers have learned from. I understand some of these relate to the conduct of court proceedings for either an Injunction or Possession which we have not been able to investigate. So, I have not referred to these issues further. I note that the Council apologised to Miss X for these errors.

Community Trigger

80. The Council has indicated that regular reviews took place of the actions being taken in Mrs X’s case. As a result it did not use the Community Trigger process. However, given the ongoing nature of the ASB complaints, the Council should have highlighted the Community Trigger process to Mrs X and arranged to carry out a Community Trigger (now called ASB Case Review). Government guidance notes that for Community Trigger reviews, consideration should be given to involving somebody independent to provide an external or fresh perspective on the case and the action that has been taken. Had this been done, it is possible that other perspectives may have been useful in determining other action that could be taken. The failure to consider the case through the Community Trigger Process was fault.

Other Issues

81. Although I recognise Mrs X did have to raise concerns and chase responses on occasions, the Council had set out regular contact with Mrs X to update her. On balance, I have not found fault in the way the council communicated with Mrs X.
82. However, the January 2022 meeting did not work as planned and this was unfortunate. While there may have been good intentions behind the aim of the meeting, I found the arrangements had not been made sufficiently clear and Mrs X was put in an uncomfortable position by effectively being asked to confront the officer. This was fault.
83. I did not find there was fault in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s request to use a former council officer as an advocate. It was not wrong for the officer to be an advocate, but it was unusual. The consideration given to this by the Council seemed to be to ensure correct processes were being followed and any conflict of interest would not cause an issue.
84. I note that there was concern about safeguarding reports not being made specifically for each child. However, I am satisfied the disabilities of Mrs X’s children were known by the professionals involved, and the impact on them was a part of the consideration of what action was needed on the case. A risk assessment had been conducted.

Back to top

Agreed action

85. The Council agreed to send Mrs X a written apology for the failure to keep in consideration all of its ASB powers when dealing with her ASB reports and for the errors it identified during its own complaint investigation. This should comply with our guidance on making apologies.
86. To recognise the distress caused by the failings we found and the uncertainty about whether other action could have been taken sooner to limit Anti-Social Behaviour that Mrs X’s family faced, the Council should pay her £800.
87. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

88. There was fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman