Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of its investigations into her neighbour’s behaviour causing an infestation of rats. We did not find fault with the Council’s general progression of enforcement. We found fault with some initial delays, record keeping and the Council not evidencing a risk assessment of Mrs X and her family with the behaviour reported. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council's handling of her reports of environmental health concerns caused by the anti-social behaviour by a neighbour with their actions causing an infestation of rats. This included delays in taking action, not properly considering evidence and concerns with its record keeping. She says she had to move out of her home temporarily because of the health risk to her children. This has caused the family significant distress, frustration, and inconvenience.

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 significant injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided. This included copies of its policies, email communication from parties involved and its case records.
6. 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

Law and administrative background

Anti-social behaviour

7. 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. They may approach a complaint using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
8. The 2014 Act introduced powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These include: the power to issue a community protection notice (“CPN”), a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for) and criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction).

Community Protection Notices

9. 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.
10. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a CPN. The council should decide how long after the written warning to wait before serving a CPN. 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 (formally known as the Community Trigger)

11. 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’. Relevant bodies 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.
12. 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.

Risk Assessment

13. The Government has published statutory guidance for agencies involved in investigating and tackling ASB. The guidance says: “It is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim(s), and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with anti-social complaints. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported anti-social behaviour is having on the victim(s), particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim, either as a one-off incident or as part of a targeted and persistent campaign of anti-social behaviour against the victim(s).”

Relevant background

14. Mrs X said her neighbour (“Ms J”) has persistently and excessively put out bird feed in a neighbouring field and her garden since mid-2022. This has attracted large rat infestations by their houses. Mrs X has young children under the age of three. She had significant concerns about the potential risk of diseases by the rats.
15. Mrs X said she and other neighbours have tried to speak to Ms J. However, she would not respond well and continued to feed. Her family had to temporarily move out of their home for periods due to this and Mrs X said this has significantly impacted her mental wellbeing. She had employed pest control measures at her own expense throughout this. However, the rat numbers could not be kept down due to Ms J’s behaviour.

What happened – summary of events

16. I have summarised below an overview of events. There have been extensive emails between Mrs X and the Council. For brevity, this is not a detailed account of each communication between the parties or an exhaustive chronology of everything that happened.

Other separate reports to the Council

17. Between April and May 2023, two other neighbours made separate reports to the Council about Ms J’s feeding. Council records show it sent Ms J two letters (in April and June) about her behaviour and it later linked all the complaints together.
18. In mid-August 2023, another separate report was made, and the Council sent another letter to Ms J.

Events with Mrs X’s complaint

19. In mid-April 2023, Mrs X made an online report to the Council about the ongoing issues with Ms J. An Officer left a voicemail for Mrs X, and she said she tried to call back several times.
20. In mid-May, the Officer spoke to Mrs X after an enquiry from a third party. It noted Mrs X said the situation may have improved. Three weeks later, the Officer followed up and arranged a visit.
21. In early June, two Officers visited Mrs X’s property. Council notes say Ms J approached them and confirmed her regular feeding. The record noted potential mental health concerns with Ms J.
22. In mid-June, an Officer updated Mrs X. It intended to take a balanced approach by considering alternative methods to formal enforcement. It would take the case to an upcoming multi-agency meeting in early July. Mrs X sent further emails asking for an update.
23. In mid-July, an Officer responded and confirmed it sent a warning letter to Ms J.
24. In late-July, Mrs X contacted the Council as Ms J continued to feed and it was significantly impacting her and her family. The Council said Mrs J told it she would co-operate, and it would encourage her with this. Mrs X raised concerns with the approach in light of evidence she had gathered about Ms J. The Council noted this and arranged a visit to obtain first hand evidence.
25. The Council was in contact with Ms J about the situation and wrote to her again.
26. In mid-August, two Officers visited Mrs X, with a Councillor present. Council notes said they observed some rats with no evidence of ground feeding. It advised Mrs X if feeding happened again, to inform it and it would take enforcement action. Two days later, Mrs X sent the Council evidence of Ms J’s continued feeding.
27. In late August, the Council issued a Community Protection Warning (“CPW”) to Ms J to stop ground feeding and take other actions. If she continued, it would consider a Community Protection Notice (“CPN”). The Council updated Mrs X.
28. During September, an Officer conducted visits three times and updated Mrs X. It asked her to report any further behaviour and it would monitor. The Council also had contact with Ms J about actions she was taking during this, and she said she would stop feeding. At the end of September, the Council issued a CPN to Ms J. It informed her failure to comply could result in a Fixed Penalty Notice (“FPN”) or prosecution. The Council updated Mrs X.
29. In early October, an Officer visited. The notes say there was no sign of feed on the ground or rats seen. Mrs X contacted the Council to say the rat infestation continued. The Council said it would continue to monitor compliance and it needed evidence to follow this up.
30. In mid-October, an ASB case review was held. This included the Police and Mrs X’s husband attended later to give a statement. Council notes of the meeting said it agreed a joined up approach and other actions. It said joint visits with the Council and Police would take place weekly for the next four weeks. The Police said Ms J’s behaviour was not criminal.
31. The Council’s records showed notes of weekly site visits up to around the end of November. The notes generally said some or little evidence of bird seed or rats seen. An Officer updated Mrs X that it was taking legal advice with a potential FPN or prosecution, and it would follow up if breaches occurred.
32. At the end of October, Mrs X sent evidence to the Council. The following week she asked for an update and sent more evidence.
33. At the start of November, the Council informed Mrs X it would do a further site visit. She, Ms J and a Councillor were present. The notes said a small amount of feed and some rats were seen in Ms J’s garden. Ms J said she had not been ground feeding.
34. Mrs X made a formal complaint after this. She included concerns about comments made by an Officer and delays in taking enforcement action.
35. Two days later, the Council issued Ms J an FPN for Breach of Community Protection Notice, as she had continued to lay food sources at her property. The Council updated Mrs X. A week later, an Officer visited after Mrs X sent evidence of feed found in the field. The notes of the visit confirmed this.
36. The next day, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage One:
• It apologised if she felt any inappropriate or personal comments were made as it did not believe there was any intention behind these.
• It accepted some delays, and it could have been clearer in managing expectations and linking other service requests in April. It reminded officers to ensure service request history is checked so complaints could be linked and better coordinated.
• It said the case remained open and further enforcement action could be taken depending on evidence.
37. The Council was in contact with Ms J about steps she was taking to address the issue.
38. In mid-November, a Council Officer and Police Officer visited. The notes say rats and some ground feed were seen. In late November, the Council acknowledged further evidence sent by Mrs X. The Council received internal legal advice about next steps. The Council then wrote to Ms J to explain potential further action it could take, including prosecution, if she continued her behaviour.
39. In mid-December, the Council responded at Stage Two to Mrs X’s complaint after she escalated it.
• She said the Council did not do a risk assessment or assess any vulnerabilities for her family. The Council said this was taken into account during the investigation. It did not uphold this part.
• She challenged the notes of two site visits which the Council later corrected. She also had concerns Officers did not always visit Ms J’s garden where she fed. The Council reminded officers of the importance of reliable and accurate note taking. It apologised for any misunderstanding caused. It upheld this part.

Events shortly after Mrs X’s complaint to us

40. In late December 2023, following further internal legal advice, the Council issued another CPW to Ms J. In mid-Jan 2024, the Council issued another CPN to Ms J.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

41. The Council said since Mrs X’s complaint to us, Ms J has breached the CPN. It decided it is in the public interest to move towards prosecution, with paperwork currently with its legal team.
42. The Council said no formal risk assessment was documented. It relied on the professional judgement of investigating officers based on evidence available.
43. The Council said it decided it was not necessary to visit Ms J’s garden (due to her behaviour) and it could gather evidence in the other affected areas it observed.

Analysis and findings

44. My investigation focuses on events from April to December 2023.
45. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide what enforcement action the Council should take or when, or to assess the strength of evidence to decide if thresholds are met. That is the Council’s job and are matters of professional judgement for it to decide.

Delays and enforcement action taken

46. In response to Mrs X’s report in April 2023, an Officer initially left a voicemail and did not follow up with any further contact until a month later, despite her attempts. In my view, the Council should have been more proactive to contact Mrs X to begin its investigation.
47. The Council did not initially link a group of similar complaints together in Spring 2023 after Mrs X’s first report. The Council is entitled to first try informal action to respond to reports. However, it sent a number of informal letters to Ms J without proper oversight, before sending one for Mrs X’s specific complaint. This likely created some unnecessary repetition of work and the Council accepted this delayed progression at the start. This is fault. This has caused frustration to Mrs X. But I cannot say had it not been for these initial delays, if it is likely to have significantly impacted the overall investigation.
48. After the letter it issued to Ms J in mid-July for Mrs X’s specific complaint, the Council progressed through other stages of enforcement. It later issued a CPW, a CPN and then an FPN; there was around a month between these. Within each stage, I have seen the Council communicated with both Ms J and Mrs X about the action taken, received their evidence and accounts, monitored compliance, and made site visits before it proceeded to the next stage. It is not for me to judge the enforcement action taken but these are appropriate steps for the Council to take.
49. After the FPN in November 2023, the Council reviewed the case and noted Mrs X’s further evidence. It then acted on internal legal advice to communicate further with Ms J and move to some enforcement stages again before pursuing prosecution. The Council considered relevant information when deciding how to proceed and I do not find fault with how it came to its decision.
50. I appreciate Mrs X feels the Council unnecessarily delayed and wanted it to take much quicker action due to the significant impact she said she was experiencing. There are no set timescales for investigations or enforcement however we would expect cases to be progressed regularly. While Mrs X may disagree, from the evidence seen, I am satisfied the Council did not let the case drift for significant periods of time without action.
51. The Council has confirmed it is now moving with prosecution action against Ms J. I cannot add further to this, and this has happened since Mrs X’s complaint to us which is outside the scope of my investigation.

Record keeping

52. The Council said it had revised site note visits for clarification. To me, this shows it accepts its notes were not necessarily representative of what had been observed. There were also occasions where the Council did not always visit Ms J’s garden where Mrs X said she would specifically feed. It is for the Council’s judgement to decide where it needs to visit to gather sufficient evidence and why, so this is not fault in itself. However, it should have explained this in the records at the time with its reasons.
53. The Council did not have notes from the multi-agency meeting at the start of July 2023. Also, the ASB case review recorded notes said several actions were agreed, in addition to joint visits for the following weeks. The Council could not locate a copy of the agreed actions. I can see the joint visits occurred but without a record of what the other agreed actions were, I cannot see if they were carried out.
54. The above shows elements of poor record keeping; this is fault. This has also caused uncertainty and frustration to Mrs X.

Risk assessment

55. The Council did not carry out a formal risk assessment of Mrs X and her family and said it had taken the impact on them into account. In my view, there is no clear record of this. Although there is no mandatory requirement for the Council to do a risk assessment, ASB statutory guidance strongly encourages it (see Paragraph 13). Given Mrs X’s circumstances - she has very young children and she repeatedly raised concerns of persistent detrimental impact, and potential risk to their health because of the rats – I consider it was warranted in this case. Any vulnerabilities should have been properly considered and documented.
56. However, even if it had done so, on balance, I cannot say whether the Council would have approached the case in a different way which would have materially changed the outcome. It did move it through its enforcement stages. But this an important step the Council should have taken in dealing with Mrs X’s situation, and its failure to do so is fault. This creates uncertainty for Mrs X about what might have happened if the Council had demonstrated it properly considered potential risk and harm throughout. This is injustice to Mrs X.

Communication

57. We conduct proportionate investigations. We do not try to answer all points of dissatisfaction or every question a complainant may have about what an organisation did.
58. Mrs X has raised several concerns with the way the Council has communicated with her. Part of her complaint mentioned inappropriate verbal personal comments she felt it made and how this affected her. We make evidence based decisions, but I note the Council apologised for some of these in its first complaint response. Mrs X also said she felt misled at times from what the Council would say to her, and it would be inconsistent with its actions compared to what it said. However, it is not proportionate to address all individual instances of these or each dispute of what has been said by individuals over a long period.
59. On balance, from all written communication I have seen, I find the Council had regular contact with Mrs X and updated her as appropriate and generally gave sufficient responses where it could. I recognise some occasions when Mrs X chased for updates, she expressed disatisfaction with some of its replies to her questions or disagreed with explanations given. However, as a whole, I have not seen significant concerns that I would conclude warrants a finding of fault with the Council’s communication.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
61. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) and pay her a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise her uncertainty and frustration for the faults identified.
62. Within three months of the final decision:
• Send written reminders to relevant staff that statutory guidance recommends carrying out a risk assessment in ASB cases to assess the vulnerabilities and potential harm to complainants, and they should always consider doing this, or record their reasons in its file clearly for not doing so.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I found some fault with the Council which caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman