Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her reports of a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour, and complained about the way the Council handled her complaint. Miss X said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, upset and frustration. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her reports of a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour. She also complained about the way the Council handled her complaint, and that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her in line with the Equality Act.
2. Miss X said her neighbour’s actions made her feel harassed, and the situation impacted on her health because of her disabilities. She said it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, upset and frustration.

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. 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

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss 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.
6. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Anti-social behaviour

7. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour. The Council’s website sets out how it tackles anti-social behaviour. It says it takes all anti-social behaviour complaints very seriously and aims to respond to them within one working day.

Complaint handling

8. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will register a complaint under stage one of its procedure when someone tells the Council they want to make a formal complaint.
9. The complaints procedure says:

“In general terms, a complaint can be considered as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the council, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of individuals.’”

10. It also says:

“We will always try to resolve enquiries/concerns by way of 'service requests' by talking through problems with you, without the need to go through our formal complaints procedure.”

Reasonable adjustments

11. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
12. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

The Equality Act

13. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
14. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
15. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.
16. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

What happened

17. Miss X contacted the Council’s anti-social behaviour team to report anti-social behaviour by her neighbour, and to ask the Council if it had given the neighbour permission to do something. She called the Council at least four more times after this with the same concerns.
18. A week later, Miss X called the complaints team to make a complaint because she had not received a response from the anti-social behaviour team, despite having left messages asking for them to call her back. Miss X spoke to a complaints officer (Officer Q). She told Officer Q she wanted to make a complaint and said she could not use the Council’s website to make a complaint due to her disabilities.
19. Officer Q said Miss X was making a service request, for the anti-social behaviour team to call her back. Officer Q told Miss X the Council does not log service requests as complaints. Miss X asked Officer Q if they were refusing to take her complaint. Officer Q again said the Council does not log service requests as complaints.
20. Miss X told the Council she needed a reasonable adjustment due to her disabilities. The Council called Miss X a few days later and put her complaint in writing for her.
21. In its stage one complaint response, the Council said it had not received any information that one of its departments (not the anti-social behaviour team) was involved. It said the Council does not log requests for callbacks as complaints. It signposted Miss X to use its website to ask for stage two of the complaints procedure.
22. Miss X asked for stage two. She said she could not ask for stage two via the website due to her disabilities, which she had already told the Council. She said the Council had not answered her main complaint which was that she had called repeatedly and left messages for the anti-social behaviour team to report her neighbour’s anti-social behaviour but the team had not contacted her back. She said the Council still had not responded to those calls.
23. Miss X said she was not asking Officer Q to request a callback, she was asking to make a complaint. She said Officer Q initially refused to take her complaint over the phone.
24. In its stage two complaint response, the Council said there was little it could add to the stage one response. It repeated that it does not log requests for callbacks as formal complaints.
25. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Anti-social behaviour

26. Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her reports of a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour. She said the Council has done nothing.
27. Information on the Council’s website says it aims to respond to reports of anti-social behaviour within one working day.
28. Miss X contacted the Council’s anti-social behaviour team multiple times by phone, asking to leave messages, over a period of four or five days. The only evidence I have seen where the Council responded to Miss X’s reports of anti-social behaviour was more than two weeks after she first tried to make reports.
29. I find the Council at fault for not responding to Miss X earlier, and in line with its policy. I find this fault caused Miss X injustice in that it caused uncertainty.
30. Later, the Council told Miss X that the anti-social behaviour team and a manager were looking at her concerns. The evidence I have seen shows the Council has appropriately liaised with other agencies and taken action where appropriate. I therefore do not agree with Miss X that the Council has not taken any action.
31. However, if the problems Miss X has experienced with her neighbour continue, and Miss X reports these to the Council as anti-social behaviour, the Council should consider taking further action.

Complaint handling

32. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her complaint.
33. Firstly, Miss X complained that Officer Q refused to take her complaint over the phone.
34. The Council has a record of this phone call that Officer Q made after the call. This record shows that Miss X clearly said she wanted to make a complaint. It shows that Officer Q told Miss X she was making a service request, for the anti-social behaviour team to call her back. It shows Miss X then asked Officer Q if they were refusing to take her complaint.
35. The Council’s complaints procedure sets out the difference between complaints and service requests (see paragraphs nine and ten, above).
36. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says:

“A service request may be defined as:

“a request that the organisation provides or improves a service, fixes a problem or reconsiders a decision”.

This provides organisations with opportunities to resolve matters to an individual’s satisfaction before they become a complaint.

A complaint may be defined as:

‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of individuals.’

An individual should not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.”

37. Officer Q believed Miss X’s complaint was a service request. I do not agree with their interpretation. This is because Miss X clearly said she was making a complaint. The record of the phone call shows this. If Miss X had been happy for Officer Q to make a service request, she would not have repeated that she was making a complaint and would not have asked Officer Q if they were refusing to take her complaint.
38. The complaints procedure says the Council will register a complaint under stage one of its procedure when someone tells the Council they want to make a formal complaint. I find it was clear that Miss X said, twice, she wanted to make a complaint. Therefore, the Council’s actions were not in line with its complaints procedure. This is fault.
39. I find the Council at fault for failing to accept Miss X’s complaint in the first instance. I find this fault caused injustice in that it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration.
40. Secondly, Miss X complained the Council did not send her a written copy of her the stage one complaint she made over the phone.
41. The Council accepts it did not send Miss X a copy of the written version of her complaint. This is not significant enough to constitute fault, but it is not best practice.
42. Thirdly, Miss X complained the Council’s written version of the complaint was not as she made it. She said the Council refused to allow her to edit her complaint, and she wanted to include dates and times.
43. In Miss X’s request for stage two, she said the Council had failed to address the main point of her complaint, but did not say anything about how the Council had written down her complaint. Miss X said the complaint, as written down by the Council on her behalf, shows that she was also complaining about Council refuse trucks being driven over a pavement or footpath near her home. I do not agree. The written record of the complaint gives some background information but does not say anything about refuse trucks. Also, I have seen Miss X’s email to the Council where she said she was unhappy with how the Council had written down her complaint. She said things were missing from her complaint but she did not say exactly what was missing, and there was no mention of refuse trucks.
44. Miss X said the Council’s complaint responses did not acknowledge the point she made about the refuse trucks. She wants the Council to address this complaint. I have reviewed Miss X’s communication with the Council about the issues she complained about. She told the Council that refuse trucks drive over the pavement. But this was part of Miss X telling the Council how her neighbour’s behaviour was impacting on her, because she said the neighbour’s actions were forcing the refuse trucks to drive over the pavement. It has not been clear in any of Miss X’s communications that she wanted to complain about the refuse trucks driving over the pavement near her house. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault for not addressing it as part of her complaint. If Miss X wants to complain about this issue, she can make a fresh complaint to the Council.
45. Fourthly, Miss X complained the Council did not answer the main point of the complaint, which was that the anti-social behaviour team had not responded to her numerous calls and requests for callbacks.
46. I have seen no evidence in the stage one or two complaint responses that the Council addressed this issue. The stage one response refers to “a delay” but does not specify what delay it was acknowledging. It also refers to actions taken by one team, but says nothing about Miss X’s calls to, and messages left for, the anti-social behaviour team.
47. I find the Council at fault for failing to properly address the main point of Miss X’s complaint. This caused injustice in that it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration.
48. Fifthly, Miss X complained that Officer Q wrote parts of the stages one and two complaint responses.
49. I find that Officer Q did not write either of the complaint responses. The investigating officer asked Officer Q for their comments on what happened, given Miss X’s complaint about Officer Q. I therefore find it was entirely appropriate for Officer Q to have written down their version of events and for this to have been included in the complaint response. It would not have been a thorough investigation of Miss X’s complaint if Officer Q had not been asked for their version of events. I do not find Officer Q investigated the complaint against themself. For these reasons, I do not find fault.

Reasonable adjustments

50. Miss X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her in line with the Equality Act. I have considered whether the Council properly took account of Miss X’s rights in the way it treated her.
51. I find the Council made an appropriate reasonable adjustment for Miss X at stage one in that an officer wrote down her verbal complaint during a phone call.
52. However, the end of the stage one complaint response directed Miss X to ask for stage two via the Council’s website. She had already told the Council she could not make a complaint using its website which is why she called the complaints team in the first place. Further, the Council had already made the above reasonable adjustment for Miss X.
53. There is no evidence which shows the Council recognised it had made a reasonable adjustment for Miss X at stage one, and this needed to be carried on throughout the life of the complaint.
54. I find this shows the Council failed to have due regard to Miss X’s access needs and its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing for:
• the uncertainty caused by failing to respond to her reports of anti-social behaviour in a timely manner;
• the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by failing to accept Miss X’s complaint in the first instance; and,
• the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by failing to address the main point of Miss X’s complaint.
56. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this apology.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman