Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not investigate his complaint properly. He also complained the Council did not take action to protect him from the actions of engineers from a statutory undertaker carrying out work in his area. Mr X said the workers verbally and physically assaulted him and other local residents and caused intentional damage to their property. Mr X said this has affected his mental health. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not investigate his complaint properly. He also complained the Council did not take action to protect him from the actions of engineers from a statutory undertaker carrying out work in his area. Mr X said the workers verbally and physically assaulted him and other local residents and caused intentional damage to their property. Mr X said this has affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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

4. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr 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

Background information

7. On-going anti-social behaviour (ASB) such as the inconsiderate making of noise may require intervention by councils and police.
8. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle ASB. But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
9. Councils and the police can issue Community Protection Notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a negative effect on the community's quality of life, and which they decide is unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not repeated. Failure to comply is an offence, and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
10. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of the CPN. It is for the person issuing the written warning to decide how long is appropriate before serving a CPN. A CPN can be appealed in the Magistrates' Court within 21 days by the recipient if they disagree with the council’s decision.
11. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court is persuaded they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
12. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. In September 2022, Mr X said engineers from a statutory undertaker verbally and physically assaulted him outside his home. Mr X confirmed he registered complaints with the statutory undertaker and the police.
17. Mr X contacted the district Council in May 2023. He said the Council should take action to ensure the engineers are held to account. Mr X wanted the Council to stop contracting work with the statutory undertakers.
18. The Council advised Mr X, it did not contract the work and it was the responsibility of the highways department. It also confirmed the incident was a criminal matter.
19. Mr X disagreed with the Council and said it should protect him against the engineers. He confirmed he had approached the highways authority, who said it was a police or civil matter.
20. The Council stated it had no legal responsibility for the contracting or the workers.
21. The Council agreed to complete a light touch ASB investigation. The Council contacted the police as part of the investigation. The police confirmed it received no other complaints about the incident.
22. The Council checked with the community warden and the ASB team. They confirmed they had not received any other complaints.
23. The Council wrote to Mr X to inform him about the investigation. It said it consulted internal teams and the police. They did not receive any other complaints. The Council decided it would close the case.
24. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to take action against the statutory undertaker and remove the workers from the area.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council stated the police were active at the time Mr X contacted the Council. It said the issues raised were for the police to consider. The Council confirmed it completed an investigation and determined there was no role for it.

My findings

26. I appreciate Mr X was hopeful the Council would take action against the company or the workers. I recognise the difficulty of Mr X’s experience. However, the Ombudsman investigates the Council’s actions. I cannot criticise the merits of a decision, if properly taken.
27. The matters Mr X complained about are about a verbal and physical abuse incident. This incident is for the police to consider if it would take further action.
28. The Council has repeatedly explained to Mr X, it has no role in contracting with the statutory provider. Mr X has disagreed with the Council. The Council had no power to intervene with the contractor. It was not the commissioning authority. The Council was not at fault.
29. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to reconsider Mr X’s ASB complaint and make our own conclusions on this. Rather, we consider whether the Council followed the right process when considering Mr X’s complaint.
30. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether its decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.
31. The Council agreed to consider the matter under its ASB powers. The Council contacted its ASB department and community warden. Both confirmed no other person had raised any complaint about this matter. The Council also spoke to the police who confirmed they had not received any complaints from other people about the incident. The Council has evidenced it has completed a proportionate investigation. It considered relevant factors. The Council decided it would close the case. I have not found fault in how the Council conducted its investigation. Therefore, I cannot comment on the outcome. There is no fault in the actions taken by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I have not found fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman