Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for delay investigating Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour and delay dealing with his complaint. The remedy it offered in response to the complaint, an apology and symbolic payment, is suitable to remedy the injustice caused. There was no fault in the Council’s investigation of the ASB or its decision not to take action against the alleged perpetrators.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that, despite a previous complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council failed to address ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours and took too long to deal with his complaint about this.
2. Mr X says as a result, he continues to experience significant ASB and is at risk of harm.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X and the organisation 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

ASB

10. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in law (section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
11. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour. 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.
12. The 2014 Act introduced six new powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These are:
• the power to issue community protection notices (CPN);
• the power to make a public spaces protection order (PSPO);
• the power to close premises for a specified period of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order, which can be made upon application by the local authority or other agencies);
• 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

Our previous investigation

13. In a previous complaint, we found fault with the Council because it had not properly investigated Mr X’s reports of ASB from neighbours. We found the Council had not considered its powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That investigation covered a period up to June 2023.
14. To remedy the injustice, the Council agreed to investigate Mr X’s reports of ASB and write to him setting out what, if any, action the Council intended to take.

What happened

15. In June 2023, Mr X’s tenancy officer referred the case to its ASB team.
16. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2023 that the ASB was ongoing and he had not heard from his tenancy officer or the ASB team about it.
17. Mr X chased his complaint in September as the Council had not responded.
18. In November, the Council’s ASB team started investigating Mr X’s concerns.
19. The Council visited Mr X in December to witness the noise and smells he reported.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in January 2024. It accepted:
• Delay responding to his complaint
• Delay in progressing the ASB case since June 2023
21. It acknowledged that this would have caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty. It offered a remedy of £500.
22. In March, the Council interviewed the alleged perpetrators.
23. In May, the Council considered Mr X’s case at a Risk Management and Vulnerability Panel.
24. The Council decided not to take any action because it did not find Mr X’s allegations substantiated.

My findings

25. The Council has already accepted fault for its delay from June to November 2023 in investigating the ASB. The £200 it has already offered is a suitable remedy for the distress and uncertainty this caused.
26. We cannot question the merits of a decision made without fault. This means we look at whether the Council made its decision properly, taking into account the relevant evidence. I cannot include details of the Council’s investigation because it contains personal information about third parties. However, I am satisfied that the Council properly considered all the evidence. It considered the evidence Mr X provided, visited the premises, and interviewed the alleged perpetrators. It properly considered whether to act using its civil powers and decided not to. There is no fault in how it made this decision. I cannot, therefore, question the outcome.
27. The Council has already accepted fault for its delay dealing with Mr X’s complaint. The £300 it has already offered is a suitable remedy for the distress and uncertainty this caused.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy for delay. There is no fault in its investigation of ASB.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman