Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action to address anti-social behaviour from a nearby holiday home, and communicated poorly with him. Mr X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and is impacting on his family. We do not find the Council at fault for the way it handled reports of anti-social behaviour. However, we find the Council at fault for poor communication. This caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council has apologised.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action to address anti-social behaviour from a nearby holiday home. He also complained the Council communicated poorly with him.
2. Mr X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration. He said it is having a huge impact on his family, they cannot enjoy their home peacefully.

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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. In September 2023, Mr X complained about anti-social behaviour dating back to 2021. As I have said above, we usually cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
9. In this case, I find no good reason why Mr X did not bring his complaint to us earlier. Therefore, I find no good reason to exercise our discretion and investigate any further back than September 2022, 12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
11. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

12. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
13. For example, they may approach a complaint:
• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
14. The 2014 Act introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These include the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN).

Community protection notices

15. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is unreasonable and having a negative effect on the community's quality of life. A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Not complying is an offence and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
16. A person can appeal a CPN in the magistrates' court within 21 days of receiving it if they disagree with the council’s decision.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

17. 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’.
18. 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.
19. 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.

Private legal action

20. A member of the public can take private legal action in the magistrates’ court against an alleged nuisance. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
21. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

What happened

22. Mr X lives near a holiday home. Mr X complained to the Council about seasonal noise in 2021. The Council decided it could not take planning or environmental health action about the noise.
23. In October 2022, the Council served a community protection notice on the owner of the holiday home. The owner appealed the notice. Before the appeal was heard in court, the Council made a legal agreement with the owner. This agreement required the owner to carry out certain actions to mitigate the noise.
24. Mr X complained.
25. In its first complaint response, the Council explained what action it had taken. It said it was monitoring the owner’s compliance with the legal agreement. It said it had arranged a community trigger meeting. The Council accepted it had communicated poorly with Mr X and apologised.
26. Mr X complained the Council had advised him to communicate directly with the owner. The Council said communication between parties directly affected can be best to deal with problems. But not if there is a risk of harm.
27. The community trigger meeting resulted in an action plan with certain actions for the Council to complete. The Council told Mr X the outcome of this meeting.
28. In the Council’s stage two complaint response, it said it had spoken to the relevant director for the service complained of and they had taken on board learning about poor communication.
29. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Anti-Social Behaviour

30. Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action to address anti-social behaviour from a nearby holiday home.
31. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
32. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took into account.
33. The Council issued a community protection notice which it had the right to do. The Council then chose to enter a legal agreement with the owner of the holiday home. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make. The Council held a community trigger meeting and sent Mr X the action plan that came out of that meeting.
34. The Council has completed the actions in the action plan. This included giving Mr X a single point of contact at the Council, and advising him of his right to take private legal action through the courts.
35. I find the Council followed the process it should have, and did what it should have done, when dealing with the reports of anti-social behaviour. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Communication

36. Mr X complained that the Council communicated poorly with him.
37. In its complaint responses, the Council accepted it had communicated poorly with him. This is fault. I find this caused injustice, in that it caused uncertainty. The Council apologised for this. I find this is a suitable remedy for the level of injustice caused by the fault. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
38. Mr X said the Council has not learnt from his complaint and calls the Council’s response “lip service”. This is not evidence of fault.
39. Mr X complained the Council advised him to communicate with the owner after he had repeatedly told the Council the owner had threatened him.
40. The Council’s advice to speak to the owner was in line with its policy. I therefore cannot criticise this, for the same reasons given in paragraph 31. For this reason, I do not find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I uphold the part of Mr X’s complaint about poor communication. I find fault causing injustice. I am satisfied the Council has appropriately remedied the injustice by apologising.
42. I do not uphold the part of Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his reports of anti-social behaviour. This is because there is no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman