Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not take adequate action against his neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. We have found fault with the Council for delays during the antisocial behaviour case review process which caused Mr X avoidable distress.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council managed reports of his neighbour’s (Mr Y) antisocial behaviour towards himself and his partner. He said the Council initially said it would not get involved in a neighbour dispute even though his neighbour had been causing problems in the building for decades.

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. 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.
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated matters dealt with by the police as this is not within our jurisdiction. I have referred to the police actions as this provides context for the Council’s actions.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to hm about it.
7. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
8. 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

The law and guidance

Antisocial behaviour (ASB)

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The 2014 Act introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:
• the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a set length of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which a council, or other agencies, can apply for);
• a criminal behaviour order (a court order made following a conviction); and
• the power for the police to disperse people from a specified area.

Community protection notices

12. 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.
13. 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.
14. In some instances, antisocial behaviour may cause a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. In such cases councils can serve both a CPN and an abatement notice on the perpetrator, if they consider it necessary.

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

15. 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’.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.

Council’s ASB Case Review Policy

20. The policy states that ASB is any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person’s quality of life. It says the Community Trigger allows people to report persistent ASB. It recommends that people use the Community Trigger if they have reported ASB to the Council, Police and/or a registered housing provider three times about separate incidents in the last six months (with the most recent incident having occurred in the last month).
21. The policy states that once a person has asked for a community trigger, the Council will ask the agencies involved to provide details of their complaints and actions that have been considered and taken.
22. The Council said that it will acknowledge the request within two working days. Within ten days, a panel of professionals from multiple agencies will review the case. Within twelve days, the Council will inform the person of the outcomes and a proposed action plan if applicable.

What happened

23. Mr X lives in a block of six flats. Mr Y lives in the same block. Both parties are leaseholders.
24. In May 2023, Mr X contacted the Council. He said his neighbour, Mr Y was harassing and verbally abusing him and his partner. He asked for an ASB case review. The Council told Mr X that it was a civil matter and that it would not get involved. It advised Mr X to seek legal advice and speak to the management agents and if it is criminal, call the police.
25. Mr X approached the Council again in September. The Council apologised for its previous response and agreed take the case forward.
26. The Council spoke to Mr X and arranged a ASB case review meeting with the police and offered victim support to Mr X. Mr X declined victim support.
27. Following the meeting with the police, the following was agreed:
• The Council would follow up with pest control officers who overheard the alleged abuse.
• The police would follow up on complaints received about Mr Y
• The Council would seek legal advice regarding next steps it could take
• The Council would check with adult social care and mental health team to see if the Council has had any previous contact with Mr Y.
• The Council would explore other measures to resolve the situation. It offered an advocacy service to Mr X involving mediation with Mr Y. Mr X declined this due to Mr Y’s aggressive behaviour.
28. In October, the Council received legal advice about potentially carrying out a civil injunction against Mr Y. The Council completed the relevant paperwork and returned it to legal service at the end of November. It acknowledged that there was some delay at this stage.
29. Mr X raised a complaint that the process was taking too long and the problems continued.
30. The same day, the Council responded to Mr X. It said that it would not take a civil injunction out against Mr Y. It explained that the incidents mainly took place in a private setting and that the Council did not have power to serve notice on a private leaseholder. It said only the Freeholder could do this.
31. The Council explained that it was working with the police on the matter. It said the police had issued a Community Protection Notice (CPN) which restricted the contact Mr Y could have with Mr X.
32. The Council spoke with Mr Y to gain his views of the situation. He said the problems began when the management of the building changed.
33. In January 2024, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two. The Council responded and maintained its position regarding a civil injunction. Until April 2024, the Council did not receive any reports of incidents between Mr X and Mr Y.
34. Mr X contacted the Council in April and said that he had reported 25 incidents to the police where Mr Y had breached the CPN since December 2023.
35. The Council arranged a joint meeting with the police. Following the meeting, the Council agreed to:
• contact the Freeholder
• contact the building management company
• check whether Mr Y was known to any medical services.
36. The police issued a further CPN and said it would look to issue a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO). The Council said it continued to work with and assist the police.
37. The Council followed up with Mr X in May 2024. It said it had carried out the actions from the meeting. This included making contact with the property’s freeholder and the building’s management company. Both parties had experienced problems with Mr Y over the years, and had taken measures to mitigate these. However, the freeholder would be unlikely to pursue court action against Mr Y as this would be costly and take a long period of time.
38. The Council advised Mr X that it would be taking no further action other than to work with the police. Mr X, unhappy with the Council’s decision, brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Rejection of ASB case review

39. When Mr X first approached the Council in May 2023 requesting an ASB case review, the Council said it could not get involved with a civil case. I have found fault with the Council for failing to consider Mr X’s request.
40. It was not until September when the Council responded in line with its ASB policy. This delay meant that Mr X experienced an additional four months of issues with his neighbour before the Council became involved. This caused avoidable distress for Mr X and his partner.
41. Once the Council recognised its earlier mistake, it apologised to Mr X and commenced an ASB case review.

Delayed meeting with police

42. The policy states that the Council will meet with other professionals within 10 working days of the ASB case review request. It was 15 days before the relevant Council and police officers could meet. The Council takes the lead with the administration and leadership of the ASB case reviews. However, it has no powers to make the police or other partners adhere to the 10 working day target. The Council said despite its efforts, the police were unable to meet within the Council’s timescales. I have found no fault here.

Delayed legal paperwork

43. The Council carried out the actions agreed at the ASB case review meeting. It consulted legal services about a potential civil injunction against Mr Y. The Council acknowledged that it delayed sending back the relevant paperwork regarding this matter. This was a further month of delay causing Mr X distress. However, the outcome would not have been any different.

Contact with the freeholder and building management company

44. When the Council met with the police again in December 2023, it agreed further actions including contacting the freeholder and building management company. It would have been good practice for the Council to contact these bodies sooner given their relevance to the case. However, I have fallen short of finding fault with the Council for this. Furthermore, had the Council had contacted them sooner, the outcome would not have been any different as the freeholder will not take legal action against Mr Y.

Outcome of the ASB case review

45. I have considered the steps the Council took while carrying out the case review, and the information it took account of when deciding not to take further action. I have found no fault in how it took the decision, and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Conclusion

46. I have found the Council at fault for delays during the ASB case review process. This prolonged Mr X’s distress and caused his frustration. I have recommended the Council take action to remedy this.
47. I do not consider that the outcome would have been any different had it not been for the delays.
48. I recognise that Mr X believes the Council should take out a civil injunction against Mr Y. The Council decided this was not the right course of cation. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from the police, its own policies and information from you. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Agreed action

49. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the delay in acting upon his initial ASB case review request, and the other delays during the process.
2. Pay Mr X £500 for the avoidable distress caused by the delays.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault with the Council for the delays Mr X experienced following his request for an ASB case review.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman