Summary: Mrs X complains the Council have not taken sufficient action following reports she raised about anti-social behaviour. We have concluded our investigation having not made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates the Council investigated Mrs X’s reports, took action where it considered appropriate, and continued to monitor the case. We have not seen evidence of inaction or delay by the Council, and we cannot criticise decisions made properly.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council have not taken sufficient action following concerns she has raised about antisocial behaviour. Mrs X says she has been subjected to noise disturbance, intimidation and damage to her property, in which the Council have failed to take action. Mrs X says that inaction from the Council affected her and her family’s mental wellbeing. Mrs X would like the Council to take action to resolve the antisocial behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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. I liaised with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I also made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided in response. I invited Mrs X and the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments and evidence that was provided in response.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

6. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
7. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution, or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
8. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.

Community Trigger

9. The Act also introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of 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.
10. 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.

The Council’s anti-social behaviour policy

11. The Council’s ASB policy refers to the Act’s definition of ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
12. The policy says, “Our staff will take a problem solving approach to managing reports of ASB, and whilst remaining supportive will keep an open minded approach to any investigation which focusses on stopping the problem”.
13. The Council’s policy says details of how to invoke the Community Trigger are published on its website. The Council’s website provides a link by which complainant’s can request a review of their case.

Back to top

What happened

14. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.

Background

15. The Ombudsman have considered a previous complaint by Mrs X. In this complaint, Mrs X complained the Council did not properly deal with or acknowledge her reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. The Ombudsman found fault for delayed action by the Council and for failure to inform Mrs X about the Community Trigger process.

Events thereafter

16. Following Mrs X’s complaint to our service, in January 2022 the case was discussed by a community trigger panel. At this meeting, it was agreed that new measures would be put in place and a single point of contact established.
17. The Council says that in response to ongoing reports, it issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW) in February 2022.
18. In March 2022, the Council notes that Mrs X had agreed that noise nuisance had reduced since the CPW had been issued. Mrs X disputes that the noise reduced, but rather that the noise had changed.
19. In May 2022, following further reports of noise, the Council visited Mrs X’s neighbour to discuss the reports of noise nuisance and to remind the neighbour of the terms of the CPW. The Council says it informed the neighbour how noise levels could be reduced but says that noise it observed on the day was general living noise.
20. In June 2022, the Council visited Mrs X’s neighbour to ensure the recommendations from its previous visit had taken place. The Council also visited Mrs X who reported that noise disturbance was ongoing and so it was proposed that noise recording equipment be installed for a three-month period.
21. The Council says the noise recording equipment was removed in November 2022. Mrs X asserts that the noise recording equipment was removed in October 2022. In any event, upon reviewing the data, the Council determined that there was not sufficient evidence to meet the statutory noise nuisance threshold.
22. The Council says it undertook further visits to Mrs X’s neighbour between November 2022 and December 2022 and in December 2022, an independent review of the case was undertaken by a third party. Recommendations made after the review centre around best practice. It is noted that no recommendations were proposed for action that should be taken to remedy the reports made by Mrs X.
23. In February 2023, a meeting is held between Mrs X, her partner and various relevant Council officers. The purpose of the meeting was to agree an action plan and review date, consider any counter allegations, discuss further concerns to escalate, and confirm what the Council considers is and is not anti-social behaviour.
24. The Council says that in the following months, Mrs X had not made reports of further noise disturbance and that things had quietened down. Mrs X disputes this, asserting that she made many reports to the Council of incidents during this period. The Council says it considered closing the case, but Mrs X requested the case remain open, which the Council agreed.
25. The Council says between July 2023 - October 2023, Mrs X at intervals provided diary sheets. Entries included several reports of noise and other observed disturbances. The Council spoke with Mrs X about the reports but says Mrs X informed it that intervention was not required as she had brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

My enquiries to the Council

26. As part of my investigation, amongst my other enquiries, I asked the Council what consideration it gave to reports by Mrs X about intimidation and damage to her property. The Council said:
• Mrs X’s reports about damage to her property relate to a fence and that it asked Mrs X’s neighbour to remove fixtures hung from it. The Council also says it also undertook a repair of the fence to fix any damage caused.
• The Council says it considered Mrs X’s reports about intimidation, which concern a motor vehicle but it concluded that it could not evidence the intimidation described and therefore could not take action on reports made by Mr X. The Council also said a police officer was to attend the meeting held in February 2023, but unfortunately did sent apologies and did not attend on the day.

Back to top

Analysis

27. Mrs X complains the Council have not taken sufficient action following concerns she has raised about antisocial behaviour. Mrs X says she has been subjected to noise disturbance, intimidation and damage to her property, in which the Council have failed to take action. And so, it follows that my investigation will consider the action of the Council and whether it was proportionate in the circumstances or impacted by delay.
28. There is no formal ‘process chart’ for an ASB investigation. Officers should handle each case according to its merits, with a mind to the severity of the alleged behaviour, whether it is frequent or ongoing, and the potential harm to the victims. In any event, the Ombudsman would expect a good investigation to have the following steps:
• A report from the complainant;
• An investigation undertaken by the Council;
• A decision on what action to taken, if any;
• Ongoing monitoring of the case;
• Conclusion of the case.
29. In this particular case, there is background history in that Mrs X had made previous complaints to the Council which have also been considered by our service. Therefore, I recognise that events in this complaint may not ordinarily follow the steps described above given ongoing consideration and history of alleged reports made by Mrs X and the Council.
30. Matters in this complaint begin in January 2022 with the case being discussed at a Community Trigger Panel
31. In the mothers that proceed, as described in the chronology, the evidence demonstrates that the Council took action to address concerns raised by Mrs X, this includes:
• Issuing a CPW to the neighbour in February 2022
• A visit to the neighbours proper to discuss the CPW and how noise disturbance could be mitigated in May 2022.
• A further visit to the neighbour’s property to ensure the recommendations from the previous visit were being implemented in June 2022.
• From July 2022 to October/November 2022, set up noise recording equipment to assess the alleged noise disturbance.
• Commissioned an independent review of the case in December 2022
• Held a meeting with Mrs X in February 2023 to establish clarity, the appropriateness of escalation and an action plan going forward.
• Investigated and took action to resolve Mrs X’s complaints about damage by speaking with the neighbour and repairing damaged caused.
• Came to a view that reports of intimidation could not be evidenced and as such no further action could be taken.
32. I note that during the months where action is not taken by the Council, notably between March 2022 - May 2022, this coincides with Mrs X reporting that disturbance has quietened down.
33. There are no reservations regarding Mrs X’s experiences that she was subjected to noise disturbance from her neighbour, but the Council’s decision not to take further action does not amount to fault. As per paragraph 31, I consider the Council investigated Mrs X’s reports, took a decision not to take formal enforcement action and continued to monitor the case, agreeing to keep the case open at Mrs X’s request.
34. Further action by the Council included commissioning an independent review of the case, where it completed the recommendations agreed, and met with Mrs X and her partner to gather and consider their input going forward.
35. As per paragraph 4, we cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. As described above, I am satisfied that the Council investigated Mrs X reports, took a decision on what action to take, and continued to monitor the case. I understand that Mrs X has since moved from the property, and as such the case has now been formally closed.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have concluded my investigation having not made a finding of fault. The evidence demonstrates the Council investigated Mrs X’s reports, took action where it considered appropriate, and continued to monitor the case. I have not seen evidence of inaction or delay by the Council, and we cannot criticise decisions made properly.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman