Summary: Mr X complained the Council issued him with a Community Protection Warning without giving him the chance to defend himself. He said the allegation was unfounded, but the Council did not verify events with any of his neighbours and did not provide any evidence for its decision. We found no fault in the Council’s decision to issue Mr X a Community Protection Warning.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council issued him with a Community Protection Warning (CPW) without giving him the chance to defend himself. He said the allegation was unfounded, but the Council did not verify events with any of his neighbours and did not provide any evidence for its decision.
2. Mr X said he suffered anti-social behaviour from a neighbour. The Council’s actions caused him upset and distress on top of what was already a distressing situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), 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. As part of the investigation, 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. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour

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. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives councils powers to:
• Issue a community protection notice.
• Make a public spaces protection order.
• Close premises for a set length of time.
• Issue a civil injunction.

Community protection notices

11. 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.
12. 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.

What happened

13. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
14. Mr X contacted the housing association (HA) for his residential property in July 2023. He said his neighbour assaulted him and told other neighbours lies about him. He gave the HA his crime reference number.
15. The HA told Mr X he could make a homelessness application if he was in fear at home. It also contacted him to arrange a meeting to discuss housing choices.
16. In August, Mr X said his neighbour made counter allegations to the Police and he was attending a voluntary interview. He also said his neighbour was intimidating him by staring through his window and spitting on his washing. He said he felt a prisoner in his home.
17. Around the same time, Mr X’s neighbour also reported ASB to the HA.
18. HA records from September confirm it approved Mr X to move home on medical grounds and awaited a suitable property. Its records also confirm the Police investigation was ongoing and both parties made counter allegations about one another.
19. The HA wrote to Mr X in October 2023. It said there had been no further complaints, the situation seemed to have settled, and Mr X was exploring the option to move. It therefore intended to close the ASB case as there was no further intervention it could offer.
20. Mr X disagreed the situation had settled. Mr X’s neighbour also said they were constantly harassed by Mr X.
21. In November, Mr X’s neighbour reported Mr X scratched their car. Mr X denied this and said his neighbour shouted abuse at him.
22. Mr X reported being punched by his neighbour in December 2023. The HA told Mr X to report it to the Police, but Mr X declined.
23. Mr X’s neighbour then sent a video to the HA allegedly showing Mr X hurling abuse at them.
24. Mr X and his neighbour made further reports about one another in January 2024.
25. HA records confirm it told the Police and discussed issuing a CPW to both parties. It held a meeting with the Council on 1 February 2024.
26. The Council decided to issue Mr X a CPW because it was satisfied his behaviour was having a detrimental effect, of a persistent continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, and the conduct was unreasonable. It served the CPW on 13 February and it warned him not to shout loud enough to disturb neighbours, and not to use offensive language towards members of the public.
27. Mr X questioned how the Council could issue a CPW without speaking to him and with no supporting evidence. He denied shouting or using abusive language.

My investigation

28. Mr X told me he was unaware of the allegations before receiving the CPW, so he had no chance to defend himself. He also said the Council did not question any of his neighbours.
29. Mr X confirmed the Council has now rehoused him, but receiving a CPW was upsetting at what was already a troubling and upsetting time.
30. The Council told me the HA made efforts to support Mr X, but evidence from his neighbour, the Police, and the HA showed ASB did exist.
31. The Council saw footage of Mr X using foul and abusive language towards his neighbour. It considered this was likely to have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. Mr X’s neighbour also made persistent reports of ASB by Mr X. The Council approached some of Mr X’s neighbours, but they did not want to give statements or be involved.
32. The HA completed a mental health check, but Mr X was not open to those services. The HA advised Mr X to gather evidence of the health impact from his doctor and complete a health questionnaire, which he did in September 2023.
33. Mr X declined eight potential new homes offered by the HA since November 2023. He agreed to a new home in June 2024.

Analysis

34. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
35. The HA in this case performed duties on the Council’s behalf, including housing and ASB services. However, the Council retains ultimate responsibility. I have considered the steps the HA and the Council took when assessing reports of ASB, and the evidence considered when the Council decided to issue Mr X a CPW.
36. The HA received several complaints about Mr X’s behaviour from his neighbour. One of those complaints was about abusive language. The neighbour gave the HA a video recording of the incident.
37. I have seen the recording as part of my investigation. It shows a male standing outside residential premises swearing at, and insulting, another party. The exchange is loud enough to be heard clearly.
38. An officer from the HA discussed the complaints with a Council officer, and they reviewed the recording. They were satisfied the male in the footage is Mr X, and that his behaviour met the threshold to issue a CPW.
39. Mr X complained the Council did not tell him about the allegations, denying him the chance to defend himself. He also said the Council did not verify what happened.
40. I found there was an ongoing Police investigation, and Mr X was aware his neighbour made counter allegations about him. The CPW is a written warning to tell an alleged perpetrator about problem behaviour and ask them to stop. The result of not stopping being the Council may serve a CPN. While Mr X had no right of appeal against the CPW, the Council does not take further action at that stage. The Council would only act if the alleged behaviour continued. Plus, the Council had video evidence confirming what happened. It therefore did not need information from Mr X or neighbours before issuing the CPW.
41. I found the Council acted on the evidence it received, and an officer exercised their professional judgement in deciding to issue Mr X with a CPW. There was no fault in that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I completed my investigation. I found no fault in the Council’s decision to issue Mr X a Community Protection Warning.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman