Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour. The Council failed to properly monitor and keep Ms X updated on the actions of the ASB case review. The Council’s complaint handling and communication was also inadequate. These faults caused Ms X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised and offered a financial remedy for complaint handling. The Council will make a further payment to recognise the personal injustice to Ms X and remind staff of the statutory guidance on ASB case reviews.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take sufficient action over her reports of anti-social behaviour in the area where she lives. She says the Council:

• failed to provide a timeframe in which it would complete actions set in the anti-social behaviour case review;
• failed to carry out these actions;
• failed to provide contact details for an advocacy service that could support her;
• failed to respond to emails; and
• failed to provide a response to her stage two complaint.

2. Ms X says this situation has had a huge negative impact on her life and sleep and has caused a decline in her mental health.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the police. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the information Ms X and the Council provided.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered these comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

7. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour. But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.

The ASB case review (previously the Community Trigger)

8. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’. The government published statutory guidance for professionals, to assist authorities and agencies that exercise functions under the 2014 Act to respond to instances of ASB.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The 2014 Act places a duty on the relevant bodies to respond to the applicant at points in the process. These include when:

• the decision as to whether or not the threshold is met;
• the outcome of the review is decided; and
• any recommendations are made as an outcome of the review.

13. Statutory guidance says it is also good practice for relevant bodies to keep the victim informed on how they are carrying out any recommendations and monitor case progression. Where recommendations cannot be actioned, agencies should provide full reasons to the victim.

Council’s ASB case review process

14. The Council’s ASB policy says if a person reports ASB but feels no action has been taken, they can ask for an ASB case review.
15. After a person has asked for an ASB case review, the Council says it will:

• assign an ASB officer to the case;
• send a letter of acknowledgement within 10 days;
• gather information from partner agencies such as the police, fire service or social landlords;
• review information with partner agencies and actions they’ve already taken;
• decide on the next steps.

16. The Council says it will keep in touch and provide details of advocacy services for support.

‘Out of Order’: lessons learnt from complaints about ASB

17. The Ombudsman published this focus report in 2023. This highlighted that the ASB case review process is not merely an alternative complaints process looking only at whether the Council and other agencies involved to date have acted properly. Councils should use this as an opportunity to proactively consider what other action it and other agencies might take to tackle the ASB.

The Council’s complaint handling policy

18. The Council’s policy says it will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

19. The Ombudsman published the Principles of Good Administrative Practice in 2018. This sets out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction.
20. The guidance stressed the importance of:

• complying with service timeframes;
• dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual needs;
• explaining and responding to any delays proactively;
• taking responsibility for actions; and
• operating an effective complaints procedure.

Summary of key events

21. This summary does not include the actions of any other agencies.
22. The Council says that Ms X made 35 reports of ASB since 2019. However, Ms X says she made over 75 reports. Ms X says these related to incidents involving a local gang and included drug use and dealing, noise and street drinking.
23. In December 2022, Ms X wrote to the police to request an ASB case review.
24. Ms X contacted the Council on 27 January 2023 to ask for an update. The Council responded three days later and said the police failed to pass on the request. It then acknowledged receipt of her request and started the process.
25. On 28 February, the Council wrote to Ms X and said her request met the threshold for the ASB case review. It apologised for the delay and explained it had drafted a letter 10 days before but failed to send it. It said the Council and partner agencies would review and it would contact Ms X again.
26. The Council booked a review meeting for 27 March. Ms X said she could not attend this meeting and so sent an impact statement to the Council.
27. In this impact statement Ms X said the Council failed to act against the behaviours which she considered criminal, and these had significantly escalated over the years.
28. In the statement, Ms X said the ASB in her local area meant that she cannot work from home due to the noise. She also said that she cannot use her garden or have visitors. Ms X said the noise continues until around midnight and this often prevents her from sleeping. Ms X said she feels vulnerable in her local area due to the drug dealing that takes place.
29. On 27 March, council officers, the police and an advocacy service attended a review meeting.
30. The following actions involving the Council were agreed at the meeting:

• the police and the Council would work together to identify the owners of a property that may be linked to the ASB and work with them to try to resolve this;
• the Council would consider use of statutory powers under the Highways Act to deal with any obstruction of the highway;
• CCTV would be installed to cover the area;
• an advocacy service would be willing to work with Ms X; and
• once the key members of the group were identified, they would be asked to sign up to a good neighbour agreement.

31. On 6 April, the Council wrote to Ms X with the outcome of the meeting. It apologised for the delay in writing to her and said this was because it had been waiting for agencies to confirm if they could complete proposed actions.
32. Ms X responded to the Council on 1 May. She raised concerns about the reliability of some information discussed at the review meeting.
33. In terms of the action plan, Ms X said:

• the police told her in June 2021 they would try to identify the owner of the linked property and she could not understand why this had still not been achieved;
• despite the Council saying it would consider its statutory powers under the Highways Act to deal with obstruction, Ms X was still observing obstructions;
• she had received a document with Council tracked changes on from a manager suggesting a timeframe was needed for setting up the CCTV. Ms X said the police had promised to take this action since 2021 and so she would feel more confident if she understood the timeframes for this; and
• she was disappointed that the Council had still not provided contact details for the advocacy service.

34. Ms X also said that she would not be calling the police to make further reports as this takes up too much time. However, she said she would continue to make online reports, when she felt strong enough to do so.
35. As Ms X didn’t receive a response from the Council, she sent a stage one complaint on 6 September. She said she was unhappy that:

• the Council failed to meet published timescales at every point throughout the ASB case review;
• there was poor communication from the ASB case officer; and
• there was a lack of timeframes for completing actions following the ASB case review meeting.

36. The Council responded to this complaint on 18 October. It said that:

• when it became aware of the request, it acknowledged it within one working day;
• the Council apologised for contacting Ms X two days late to confirm the request was valid and explain the next steps;
• the Council also apologised the whole process took more than the published 35 days. The Council explained that Ms X’s case was complex and required a formal meeting with relevant partners. The Council said the first date all partners could attend was 27 March;
• the Council apologised for poor communication; and
• the Council admitted that where possible, it should provide timeframes of actions in the meeting. However, it said the actions relied on gathering intelligence and so this was difficult. It partially upheld this part of the complaint.

37. The Council said it must do better and this complaint highlighted the need to improve case notes, communication and management supervision. It also said it was recruiting an officer to manage ASB case reviews.
38. The Council told Ms X that if she wished to be referred to the advocacy service then she could contact a named council officer.
39. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s stage one response and so escalated this to a stage two complaint on 22 October. She said she was unhappy that:

• she had to chase to get an outcome of the review meeting eight working days after it had taken place and believed this is the only reason the Council sent her the outcome letter;
• she emailed the Council three times about her dissatisfaction with the review meeting over a 13-week period, but the Council failed to respond;
• the Council failed to respond to her stage one complaint in time;
• she did not agree most actions were about intelligence gathering and she was concerned that after seven months there was still no evidence of these actions being completed; and
• she was also unhappy the Council had still not provided any details on how she could contact the advocacy service, despite her asking on three occasions.

40. Ms X contacted the Council again on 15 November and 10 December, as she had still not had a response to her stage two complaint.
41. The Council responded mid-December apologising for its lack of response. It said that it aimed to respond within the next couple of weeks.
42. On 6 March 2024, the Council sent a stage two response to Ms X. It apologised for the delay and the frustration and uncertainty that this may have caused. It offered to send Ms X £150 to apologise for this. Ms X says she has not accepted this payment.
43. In this response, the Council:

• apologised for the poor level of service Ms X received and said this was due to human error and feedback had been provided to the individual involved;
• said it had appointed a new point of contact for Ms X; and
• said it would complete a referral to the advocacy service on Ms X’s behalf and provided Ms X with the contact details of the advocacy service for self-referral.

44. On the same day, internal Council records shows the new point of contact sent an email to colleagues and partners to request an update on the actions. This email suggested having a meeting to discuss these updates.
45. On 12 March the Council referred Ms X to the advocacy service. The advocacy service said it tried to contact Ms X via email, but she did not respond. However, Ms X says this is untrue. She said the advocacy services did not contact her until 21 March. Ms X provided evidence to show that she responded to them on the same day to say she would be available for a conversation after 8 April as she had a very busy period at work which made her unavailable for a telephone call.
46. On 25 March, the Council arranged a partnership meeting as it said there had been a lack of response from agencies via email about action plan updates. The Council contacted Ms X to ask if there was still ASB in the local area but stated that she did not respond answer this question. Ms X provided evidence that she did respond to the Council and asked for updates to be provided via email as she had a very busy workload.
47. The council officer contacted Ms X again on 3 April to say there would be a second case review meeting on 8 April and asked for an update on the ASB in the local area. The Council said Ms X did not respond to this email. Ms X said she didn’t respond as the Council failed to provide her with updates on the actions and instead kept asking her for updates.

48. Following this meeting, the Council wrote to Ms X with an update. It said:

• the owner of the property was contacted in early 2023 and it is not believed there was a link between the property and the ASB and so no further action was taken;
• the Council said it had no powers to remove individuals from a public highway. However, the police may have powers, therefore if there is an obstruction to the highway Ms X should contact the police;
• funding was granted for two CCTV cameras, which had been installed further down the road which was identified as a hot spot for criminality. The Council said there were no plans to install CCTV on the road that Ms X complains about;
• no reports had been received about ASB since May 2023. The Council asked Ms X to encourage people who are experiencing issues to come forward and report to the police;
• Ms X would be assigned an advocate from the advocacy service;
• any identified individuals believed to be causing ASB will be offered the opportunity to engage with agencies to sign ABCs; and
• Ms X is strongly advised to report any issues to the police on the phone.

49. Ms X says the Council’s view that there had been no reports of ASB in the area since May 2023 is factually incorrect. Ms X provided the reference numbers for 12 reports that she made to Police between June 2023 and August 2023.
50. In June 2024, Ms X told me that the ASB in her area is continuing, however she is now reluctant to report it as there has been no change and this has taken up a significant amount of her time.

Analysis

ASB case review action plan

51. At the first ASB case review meeting in March 2023, the Council and partner agencies agreed several actions to tackle ASB in Ms X’s local area. The Council took sole responsibility for five of these actions.
52. The Ombudsman’s guidance document ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ states that a council should take responsibility for its actions.
53. In addition to this, the ASB case review statutory guidance says it is good practice for relevant bodies to keep the victim informed on how they are carrying out any recommendations and to monitor case progression. It says where recommendations cannot be actioned, agencies should provide full reasons to the victim.
54. It took 12 months from the first meeting, two complaints from Ms X and assigning a new council officer for the Council to begin to check the progress of these actions.
55. The Council held a second review meeting on 8 April 2024 where it discussed the actions with partner agencies. In this meeting, the Council said it had worked with the police to identify the landlord of a property where it was believed some ASB had taken place. The police confirmed it had spoken to the landlord in early 2023 and the group of people linked to the ASB were not associated to this property. Therefore, neither the Council nor police had taken further action. The Council did not tell Ms X about this until 12 months after the first review meeting.
56. The Council also discussed it had considered its statutory powers under the Highways Act to deal with obstructions of the highway. However, the Council said it had no powers to intervene. Again, it took the Council 12 months to consider this and to update Ms X.
57. The minutes of this meeting show the Council also did not monitor or progress the action of identifying key members of the group and asking them to sign a good neighbour agreement. The discussions show that some members of the group were known to agencies, however they had not been asked to sign a good neighbour agreement. This action was set again for the police and Council to progress after the second meeting. Similarly, to the other actions, it took the Council 12 months to monitor this action and update Ms X.
58. Therefore, the Council failed to monitor these actions and keep Ms X informed about these. This is fault. This caused Ms X ongoing frustration and uncertainty.
59. The Council and police told Ms X on several occasions that CCTV would be installed in the area she had reported the ASB. At the second review meeting, agencies discussed that this CCTV had instead been installed in a different area, which Ms X says is half a mile away from the ASB area. The Council did not provide full reasons for this, either in the meeting or in writing to Ms X as is required by the ASB case review statutory guidance. This is fault, and this has caused Ms X further uncertainty.
60. The Ombudsman’s focus report ‘Out of Order’ says that Councils should use the ASB case review as an opportunity to proactively consider what action it and other agencies might take to tackle ASB. I do not consider the Council did this here, as it was not proactive in ensuring the actions were progressed or that they led to a reduction in ASB in Ms X’s local area. Ms X also still reports continuing ASB in the area.

Advocacy service

61. The Council’s policy says it will provide details of advocacy services to victims of ASB for support. There was a significant delay in the Council doing this. Ms X contacted the Council about this on several occasions over a 12-month period.
62. It was not until 12 March 2024, that the Council referred Ms X to the advocacy service. This was 12 months after the first meeting where this was identified as an action for the Council.
63. This delay is not in line with the Council’s policy, and this is fault. This has caused Ms X further frustration chasing this support. Ms X also told the Council several times the impact this reported ASB was having on her. The advocacy support was a service that Ms X was entitled to have and so the lack of support for more than 12 months has caused Ms X distress.

The Council’s communication

64. The Council has already accepted and apologised for poor communication with Ms X throughout the case review. This included failing to respond to several emails that Ms X sent, including three emails she sent over a 13-week period expressing her dissatisfaction with the first review meeting.
65. The Ombudsman’s guidance document ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ states that a council should deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual needs. The Council did not do this here and this is fault which caused Ms X frustration.

The complaint procedure

66. The Council also failed to follow its complaint policy. The policy says the Council will respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, however it took the Council six weeks to respond to this.
67. The policy also says the Council will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days, however it took the Council from October to March, a period of five months to respond.
68. The Councils failure to follow its complaints policy is fault. This caused Ms X further frustration as she had to chase the responses.

Remedy

69. The Council has already accepted fault for poor complaint handling, apologised and offered a payment of £150 to recognise this fault which I consider to be appropriate. I will therefore not recommend anything further here to remedy the personal injustice caused by poor complaint handling.
70. I welcome the service improvement suggested by the Council that it will be working to improve case notes, communication and management supervision as well as recruiting a council officer to manage case reviews.
71. I also recognise the Council has apologised for the other identified faults, however I do not consider this to be a sufficient remedy. The Council has agreed to a further personal remedy to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Ms X because of the identified faults.

Back to top

Agreed action

72. To remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s actions, the Council agreed to complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• pay Ms X £400 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council failing to monitor and provide updates about the ASB case review actions and referring Ms X to the advocacy service for support. This is in addition to the £150 payment the Council has offered for complaint handling;
• write to Ms X to fully explain the reasons for the decision not to install CCTV in the area that she has complained about; and
• remind staff dealing with ASB case reviews of the statutory guidance about keeping victims informed of updates within the ASB case review.
73. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman