Summary: The Council was at fault, because it did not give the complainant a clear explanation of the outcome of his anti-social behaviour case review application, nor invite him to the meeting. Although the Council has since offered to arrange a new meeting with the complainant, it has failed to actually do so. This has caused the complainant frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to make arrangements for this meeting now, and also to offer the complainant a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr J.
2. Mr J complains:

• the Council has not properly acted upon his request for an anti-social behaviour case review (‘Community Trigger’); and
• the Council has not dealt with his formal complaint about this.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr J’s correspondence with the Council, and sought the Council’s comments on a number of points.

Back to top

What I found

5. The following chronology will cover the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to describe in detail everything that happened.
6. Mr J lives in one of a cluster of small blocks of flats. He says a council tenant in one of the other blocks has been responsible for anti-social behaviour (ASB) for several years, which he has repeatedly reported to the Council and to Lewisham Homes, a now defunct council-owned agency which managed its social housing.
7. In 2022 Mr J applied to the Council for an ASB case review, but the Council rejected his application on the basis Lewisham Homes had been dealing with his reports. Mr J complained about this decision, and the Council referred the complaint to its independent adjudicator to investigator.
8. The adjudicator upheld the complaint because the Council had applied the wrong test to Mr J’s application, the correct test being that the applicant perceived there had been a lack of action. The adjudicator considered the Council should have accepted the application, and recommended the Council now invite a new application from him.
9. Mr J then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman, but we declined to investigate it because we did not consider we could add to the Council’s own investigation.
10. On 8 February 2023, Mr J applied to the Council a second time for an ASB case review. The Council convened a review meeting on 24 February in which it discussed Mr J’s application, and then wrote to him on 8 March. This letter said:

“Lewisham Homes has confirmed that a warning letter was previously issued to the reported address. The case is presently pending and is to be reviewed shortly.”

11. Mr J emailed the Council twice in the following weeks, asking it to clarify what this meant, what had actually happened at the meeting, and whether an action plan had been created. After receiving no response, he submitted a formal complaint on 8 April, reiterating these points.
12. The Council responded on 17 May. It said it had issued a warning letter to the perpetrator on 14 February, and that on 14 April, Lewisham Homes had issued a ‘letter before action’, at which point the perpetrator had committed to adhering to their tenancy agreement. After complaints of noise nuisance, Lewisham Homes had arranged a visit to the perpetrator for 16 May to reiterate its threat of legal action.
13. The Council also explained the panel which had met in February had included officers from the Council, police and Lewisham Homes, and its decision was to issue the warning letter to the perpetrator and to follow this up with a visit.
14. Mr J replied to ask the Council to clarify whether the panel had decided his reports met the ASB case review threshold. He noted the Council’s published case review figures showed it had never received an application which met this threshold. After receiving no response to this email, Mr J asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 6 June.
15. A manager in the Council’s ASB team wrote to Mr J again on 21 June. He apologised for the delay Mr J had experienced, and explained there had been some confusion about who would be responding to him. The manager said he had now taken responsibility for this.
16. The manager said he had now arranged for a new case review meeting to take place. The manager invited Mr J to attend the meeting, and explained this could be done face-to-face or virtually. He asked Mr J to confirm his preference and to provide dates for when he would be available.
17. Mr J responded to the manager on 5 July to provide his availability. He chased a response on 27 July, and the Council responded to explain the manager was on sick leave and not due to return until 31 August.
18. The manager then emailed Mr J on 17 August, again asking him to provide his availability for a meeting. Mr J responded quickly to confirm he wished to join a meeting with the Council, but reiterated the points of his formal complaint and said he was still waiting for a response.
19. On 23 August, Mr J made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
20. The Council says the manager called Mr J on 6 September to discuss again the arrangements for a meeting, but was unable to speak to him.

Back to top

Legislative background

21. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
22. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should 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.
23. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies should carry out the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
24. Asking for an ASB case review is not the same as making a formal complaint against a council for how it has handled reports of ASB.
25. We can only consider councils’ actions in an ASB case review. We cannot investigate or make findings about any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The Council refused Mr J’s original ASB case review application because it said Lewisham Homes had been dealing with his reports. However, the independent adjudicator criticised the Council for this, on the basis the correct test was that the applicant perceived no action had been taken.
27. In fact this is also not strictly accurate. The ASB statutory guidance says:

“The threshold is about the incidents reported, not whether the agency responded … If the qualifying complaints were made, a case review must be held to then determine the adequacy of the agency responses.”

28. The correct test is therefore simply that the applicant has made the correct number and/or type of complaints, within the appropriate time constraints, to meet the qualifying criteria. The applicant’s perception of the relevant agency’s or agencies’ response to their complaints is not part of the test; though, logically, if someone applies for a case review this will likely be because they are dissatisfied with the response.
29. I also note a misconception on Mr J’s part here. After the Council told him there had been a review meeting in February, Mr J asked the Council to explain on several occasions whether the panel had decided his complaints ‘met the threshold’.
30. But in this context, the threshold is relevant only in deciding whether to accept a case review application. Once relevant bodies have accepted an application, there is no threshold to consider – rather, the review panel’s role is to decide whether more can reasonably be done to tackle the ASB, and/or to support the applicant.
31. So, if the panel considered Mr J’s case review at the February meeting, then this must mean the Council considered the application had met the threshold.
32. Having said this, the Council’s website includes statistics for the number of ASB case review applications it has received each year, along the number which have met the threshold and the number which have led to recommendations being made (publishing these data is a legal requirement). But, despite receiving 20 applications in 2023, the website says none met the threshold, which cannot be accurate if this included Mr J’s application.
33. After a review meeting, the council or other relevant body should write to the applicant and inform them of the outcome. While the Council did write to Mr J after the February meeting, the letter was exceptionally brief and very ambiguous, saying only that Lewisham Homes had sent a letter to the perpetrator, and that the case was “pending” and awaiting review. It is not at all clear what this was supposed to mean – it certainly does not indicate whether the panel had decided more action was needed, nor what that action should be, which was the panel’s role.
34. I should reiterate at this point that, as a multi-agency process, I cannot investigate the appropriateness of the panel’s decision itself. But I can consider whether the Council has administered the case review process properly, and so the Council’s failure to explain clearly to Mr J the outcome of the review meeting is fault. And this fault was compounded by the Council’s failure to then respond to Mr J’s requests for clarification.
35. In addition to this, the statutory guidance says it is good practice for the applicant to be invited to attend the review meeting. This is to give them an opportunity to explain the impact the ASB has had on them.
36. This is not an absolute rule, and there will be occasions when it is not appropriate to invite the applicant. This is a decision for the relevant bodies to make on a case-by-case basis. But, given the Council’s later decision to invite Mr J to the reconvened meeting, it appears clear there was no reason not to have invited him to the original meeting. Again, therefore, I find fault for this reason.
37. And events after this point became even more confused. Mr J made formal stage 1 and 2 complaints to the Council, and while the Council replied to these messages, neither was labelled as a complaint response, nor provided a comprehensive answer to the points Mr J had raised.
38. More critically, despite Mr J repeatedly expressing his eagerness to attend the reconvened case review meeting, it does not appear the Council has ever actually arranged this meeting, nor even given Mr J any suggested dates for it.
39. I do note, and give credit to the Council, that in response to my enquiries it has itself highlighted and acknowledged these faults. It said:

“… while we did engage with [Mr J] with regards his request for a Community Trigger, the department failed to communicate adequately with him and in a timely manner…

“The outcome of [the February review meeting] was poorly conveyed to [Mr J]. It should have contained a clear message that Lewisham Homes ASB Team were working to resolve the issues that [Mr J] had raised … The reply then should have then explained to [Mr J] that as the case was being investigated and managed by Lewisham Homes at the time he submitted the Community Trigger, he should have firstly complained to Lewisham Homes, and logged a complaint via their complaints team.”

40. The Council also acknowledged there had been internal miscommunication between officers about Mr J’s case.
41. The Council said it had implemented several improvements because of Mr J’s experience. These included:

• appointing a lead officer to manage all ASB case review requests, and to act as a single point of contact for applicants, officers, and external relevant bodies;
• issuing a written procedure for officers to follow when dealing with an application for an ASB case review; and
• creating template letters for officers to use when accepting or rejecting an application.

42. This is all positive, and it is encouraging to see the Council identifying faults and working proactively to address them. I do not consider there are any further service improvements I can usefully recommend the Council make.
43. However, I remain conscious that, despite more than a year passing since his second application, and despite the Council’s agreement it is valid, Mr J’s case has still not yet been subject to a proper ASB case review. The Council’s response to my enquiries does not indicate it has taken any further steps to arrange the long-awaited meeting with Mr J, which he has confirmed to me he still wishes for. It is therefore imperative the Council should now do so without delay.
44. And, while I cannot say there would necessarily be any difference to the substantive ASB situation – again, it is not for me to decide what the outcome of the review should be – I am at least satisfied the Council’s poor handling of this matter has caused Mr J undue distress and frustration, and it should seek to remedy this.
45. Our published guidance on remedies says:

“Our recommendation for a remedy [for distress] needs to reflect all the circumstances including:

• the severity of the distress;
• the length of time involved;
• the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant);
• whether the complainant or other persons affected are vulnerable and affected by distress more severely than most people; and
• any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.

Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.”

46. Taking everything into account, I consider an appropriate remedy here is £250.
47. I also consider it would also be appropriate for the Council to offer Mr J a remedy for the time and trouble he spent pursuing his complaint, given the additional delay and confusion this caused. I consider a remedy of £100 to be appropriate for this.
48. I make recommendations to this effect.

Back to top

Conclusions

49. I consider the Council was at fault because:

• it did not provide Mr J with a clear explanation of the outcome of the review meeting from February 2023;
• it did not invite him to attend this review meeting;
• despite protracted discussion with Mr J about it, it still has not arranged a new review meeting or offered him any dates for when this might happen; and
• its handling of Mr J’s complaint was confused.

50. These faults have caused Mr J frustration, distress and time and trouble. The Council should now prioritise making arrangements for a new review meeting, and offer Mr J £350 as a remedy for the injustice he has experienced.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• contact Mr J to make firm arrangements for him to attend a new ASB case review meeting; and
• offer to pay Mr J £350 to reflect his frustration, distress and time and trouble in pursuing these matters.

52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman