Summary: There was fault in the way the Council responded to the complainant’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in her building. The Council did not give proper consideration to the complainant’s needs or to its full toolkit of powers for tackling ASB, did not follow its own ASB policy as a landlord, made a series of errors in undertaking an ASB case review, and delayed updating its risk assessment of the complainant and responding to her formal complaint. This caused distress and frustration to the complainant, for which the Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy. The Council has also agreed to undertake a new ASB case review and circulate guidance to relevant staff on the ASB case review process.

The complaint

1. We will refer to the complainant as Ms W.
2. Ms W complains about how the Council handled reports she made about anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the building she lives in, from July 2023 to July 2024. She also says the Council took too long to respond to her complaint about this.
3. Because of this Ms W says she experienced significant distress which impacted her health, and her ability to work and earn money. She also spent time and trouble complaining. She wants the Council to:

• provide full details how it recorded and responded to each incident she reported from September 2023 to July 2024. She says the Council never explained what actions it took for incidents reported after September 2023;
• assign a new officer to the case, and agree a regular interval at which it will keep her updated of progress; and
• take enforcement action about the ASB she reported, which has continued.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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)
5. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. The LGSCO investigates 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, section 25(7), as amended)
7. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
8. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
9. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
10. If the LGSCO is 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)
11. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Scope of our investigation

12. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

What we have and have not investigated

13. Ms W says she first began making complaints to the police about ASB in 2020, and then to the Council in 2022. These fall outside the period we are investigating, for the reasons explained at paragraph 12.
14. Ms W approached the LGSCO in June 2024, which means any new events which happened later than this also fall outside the period we are investigating.
15. However, we have extended this scope slightly to consider the outcome of Ms W’s ASB case review. This is because, although she received the decision on the review in July 2024, her application and the substantive consideration of the review took place before the cut-off point.
16. We may also refer to events which took place before or after the period we are investigating, where necessary to provide context.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

17. Ms W’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
18. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has considered the parts of the complaint that relate to the Council’s duties and powers around anti-social behaviour, that are separate to the Council’s role as a social housing provider. 
19. The Housing Ombudsman can consider complaints about local authorities’ housing activities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing (paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme).
20. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
21. We shared a draft copy of this decision with each party to give them the opportunity to make comments.

Back to top

What we found

22. 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. For example, they may approach a complaint as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; and/or using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
23. 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

24. 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.
25. 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.

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

26. 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’.
27. 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.
28. 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.

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.

Tower Hamlets Homes’ Guiding Principles for Managing Reports of Neighbour Nuisance

29. The Guiding Principles for Managing Reports of Neighbour Nuisance document sets out the procedure to be followed by Neighbourhood Teams when tackling ASB cases. The principles include:
• responding swiftly.
• keeping the victim/complainant informed.
• a single reporting system – to the ASB inbox.
• gathering evidence and recording it accurately.
• providing diary sheets to establish whether the behaviour complained of is reasonable or unreasonable and whether it is deliberate or not.
• assessing whether there is breach of tenancy agreement and responding in a proportionate way.
• officers demonstrating alternative actions before legal action.
• joint action – there should be a case review if case is to be (de)escalated to another team (Neighbourhoods, ASB or external). There should be a seamless transfer of the case with no delays and the resident should be notified.
• support – the Council should refer complainant to Victim Support and assess support needs of perpetrator as part of action plan.
• mediation should be carefully considered.

Background

30. The following will give an overview of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
31. In addition to this, for reasons of confidentiality, we are unable to disclose some information the Council has provided to us.
32. Ms W is the leaseholder of a flat, for which the Council owns the freehold. Another flat in the same block is owned and let by the Council to a woman, whose son is the focus of Ms W’s complaint about ASB. We will refer to him as Mr D.
33. On 24 July 2023, Ms W made a report to the Council. She said Mr D was using cannabis, vandalising and littering the communal staircase of the block. She provided video and photo evidence of this going back several months.
34. The Council responded to Ms W the same day and asked her to call to discuss the matter. Ms W says she called the next day, but the officer she spoke to could not find a record of the case, and the call was then disconnected. The Council then emailed Ms W to provide diary sheets for her to complete and return. The Council also completed a vulnerability risk assessment for Ms W, deciding the risk to her was low, because Mr D’s behaviour was not threatening or targeted.
35. The following day Ms W returned the diary sheets, describing incidents from the previous months retrospectively. She called the Council again and explained she was concerned for her safety because Mr D had a violent history which had involved the police. The Council informed Ms W it was due to meet Mr D the following week and asked her to continue completing diary sheets.
36. Ms W submitted several diary sheets, accompanied by photo and video evidence, through August and into September. On 22 August, an ASB officer visited Mr D and his mother, and warned him that his behaviour could affect the tenancy.
37. On 17 September, Ms W reported an incident from the previous day, where she said she was harassed and threatened by someone she believed to be an associate of Mr D’s.
38. On the same day Ms W submitted a formal stage 1 complaint to the Council. She said she had made a series of reports about Mr D’s behaviour, including drug abuse, littering and threatening behaviour, but had received no response from the Council. She asked for an ASB officer to contact her, and for the Council “remove [Mr D]” from the communal area of the building.
39. On 19 September the Council sent a letter to Mr D’s mother, warning her his behaviour represented a breach of her tenancy agreement, and that it could lead to her eviction if it continued.
40. The Council responded to Ms W’s stage 1 complaint on 29 September. It confirmed there was an open ASB case and summarised the actions it had taken so far, including the warning letter it had issued to Mr D’s mother. The Council said it would arrange for its enforcement team to patrol the area as a deterrence.
41. After receiving more evidence from Ms W, the Council wrote to her on 13 October to say it would consider seeking an injunction against Mr D if his behaviour continued. Ms W emailed the Council in response on 19 November, accusing the Council of repeatedly saying it would seek an injunction but without doing so.
42. Ms W continued to report incidents to the Council through November. She also made reports to the police. The Council contacted the police to seek copies of its reports, for use in any possible court case against Mr D. It advised Ms W not to take videos of Mr D for her own safety.
43. On 25 January 2024 the Council called Ms W. She reiterated her dissatisfaction with its handling of the ASB and said she intended to seek an ASB case review. Ms W told the Council she did not feel safe at the property, and in response the Council advised her she should contact its homelessness team. In an email exchange later the Council explained it had a duty to help vulnerable people manage their tenancy.
44. On 5 February Ms W submitted a stage 2 complaint. She summarised the various events up to that point and complained she was still not receiving responses to her reports or updates from the Council. She also said the Council had not carried out a risk assessment or referred her to Victim Support. Ms W also said that she, at the Council’s suggestion, contacted the homelessness team, but explained that none of the options it could offer applied to her circumstances.
45. Ms W continued making reports about Mr D in March and into April. On 2 April the Council visited Mr D’s mother again, who told the Council Mr D no longer lived there. The Council contacted Ms W on 16 April to arrange to visit her, and informed her Mr D did not live at the property anymore. Ms W denied this and said she was aware he was still living there.
46. On 29 April Ms W submitted an application for an ASB case review.
47. On 2 May Ms W reported seeing Mr D at the property. The Council replied the following day to advise her it had arranged a meeting with him the following week. On 7 May it contacted the building management to ask whether Mr D was still visiting the property. The management’s response was inconclusive.
48. The Council called Ms W on 14 May to undertake a risk assessment, and to seek her consent to refer her to Victim Support. The following day, the Council completed the new risk assessment and decided Ms W was now high risk. It also referred Ms W to Victim Support.
49. Ms W continued to report new incidents, including with the person she believed to be an associate of Mr D. On 3 June the Council explained it could not investigate ASB by an unidentified person and told Ms W she should report this to the police. It also told Ms W that, while Mr D was no longer living at the property, he was visiting to see his mother.
50. On 18 June the Council ‘upheld’ Ms W’s case review application, on the basis there had been a lack of substantive action, inadequate consideration of the risk to Ms W, and poor communication with her. The Council arranged a review meeting for 3 July and noted it would invite Ms W to attend.
51. On 20 June Ms W approached the LGSCO. She was still waiting for a response to her stage 2 complaint at that point.
52. The following day the Council emailed Ms W to explain it had been trying to arrange a meeting with a support agency working with Mr D. It reiterated it was the Council’s responsibility to support people in maintaining a tenancy.
53. On 10 July the Council responded to Ms W’s stage 2 complaint. It said it had “undertaken [its] role as social landlord”, provided appropriate updates and investigated properly, following its ASB policy. The Council asked Ms W to continue reporting incidents by completing diary sheets. It acknowledged, however, there had been a delay in responding to her complaint, and offered her £100 as a remedy for this.
54. On 11 July the Council emailed Ms W again. It noted it had not received any new reports from Ms W in over a month, and said its enforcement team had carried out numerous patrols of the block. It advised Ms W to stop filming Mr D and confirmed it had referred her to Victim Support.
55. On 17 July the Council sent a formal letter to Ms W explaining the outcome of the ASB case review. It said the Council accepted it had not properly adhered to its ASB policy in offering support to Ms W or communicating with her. The review recommended the Council should:

• consider allocating a team leader to have oversight of Ms W’s case;
• review and update Ms W’s risk assessment as she reported new incidents;
• review the case and agree an action plan with Ms W;
• give Ms W a clear response about its intended actions when she reported new incidents; and
• investigate Mr D’s vulnerability and decide what it should do to tackle the ASB.

56. The Council emailed Ms W on 18 September, having met with Mr D. It said it had confirmed Mr D was no longer living at the property and would not be returning, although he needed to make essential daily visits to his mother. The Council said Mr D was aware he should not use drugs on the property or approach Ms W, and that, if the Council received evidence that he was doing so, it might seek legal action against him.
57. Ms W says she sent further evidence of drug use in the building to the Council on 14 October, but it decided only to issue another warning letter to Mr D.
58. On 10 December 2024, Ms W confirmed to HOS that she would like the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She advised the Council has not resolved her ASB case through its complaint procedure.

Back to top

LGSCO analysis

59. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions, in the course of performing their duties. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant evidence, or not properly explained the reason it has made a decision. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to address this.
60. But we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf. If a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant feels strongly that its decision is wrong. We will not uphold a complaint simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
61. In a case such as this, that means it is not for us to make our own decision whether a person is experiencing actionable ASB, whether the Council should use its powers to enforce against it, or what powers it should use. Regardless of my findings, these remain decisions for the Council to make.
62. Ms W has provided us with a very extensive record, setting out all the many incidents she has reported to the Council, along the various contacts and items of correspondence she had with the Council, and other agencies, through the relevant period. The record also includes a detailed assessment of what Ms W considers to be the Council’s particular failure with respect to each entry, which she refers to as (for example) “report suppression”, “response deflection” or “reality distortion".
63. In some respects Ms W’s assessments amount to a disagreement with the Council, about its view of particular reports of ASB she made. However, as I have explained, it is not for me to make my own judgement on the significance of a particular incident or what the appropriate response should have been.
64. Even putting this to one side, I cannot practically consider Ms W’s complaint in this level of detail. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint. The courts have agreed it is lawful for us to limit our investigations in this way.
65. To this end, rather than addressing each point Ms W has raised, I have identified some general points to consider in the Council’s handling of this matter, which I will address separately and in turn.

The Council’s consideration of its powers to deal with Mr D’s ASB

66. As I have explained, it is not for me to make my own judgement on whether Mr D’s behaviour amounted to actionable ASB. However, the Council’s comments and actions demonstrate unequivocally that it considers so, and so I will proceed on that basis.
67. In response to our enquiries, the Council said (I have removed some parts of the Council’s response for reasons of confidentiality):

“When deciding whether to pursue legal action against a perpetrator, it is essential to demonstrate to the courts that, as a responsible local authority, we have taken all reasonable steps to support the individual in amending their behaviour. In this instance, a support need was identified, and the ASB Officer has been liaising with various agencies, including the perpetrator's key worker. An agreement is in place with both the perpetrator and his mother, allowing him to visit her at her home but prohibiting him from loitering on the communal stairs during visits …

“On December 18, 2024, the officer met with the perpetrator to reiterate the terms of the agreement and issue a warning. The officer made it clear that if evidence is obtained of the perpetrator loitering on the stairwell or smoking cannabis, the authority will seek an injunction to exclude him from the block without hesitation.”

68. I acknowledge, as the Council says, it has a duty to consider Mr D’s needs. I appreciate how the Council has sought to balance this with its duty to enforce against his behaviour, by agreeing to let him visit his mother, but with the threat of legal action if he continues to behave anti-socially while he is there.
69. I do not know precisely when the Council reached this agreement with Mr D, although I can say it was by September 2024 at the latest, because that it is when it told Ms W about it. I am also aware Ms W says she provided further evidence of drug use in the building in October, but the Council decided only to issue a warning letter to Mr D about this. However, this falls outside the period I am investigating anyway and so I cannot consider this more recent development.
70. While the existence of this agreement is positive in isolation, I cannot overlook the length of time it took the Council to act robustly in this manner against Mr D’s behaviour. Again, I do not know when the Council reached its agreement with Mr D, but I can see no reference to it earlier than September 2024; this was more than a year after Ms W began regularly reporting incidents to the Council, often providing photos and videos, which in some cases clearly depicted Mr D as the source of the behaviour.
71. And, before the agreement, the Council’s response to Mr D’s behaviour was essentially limited to warning him of the potential impact on his mother’s tenancy – a threat which, it appears, did little to convince Mr D to change his ways.
72. Another comment the Council made in response to our enquiries was this:

“The Neighbourhoods ASB Team acknowledge that there was a missed opportunity to take enforcement action against the perpetrator earlier in this investigation. At times, officers can become focused on addressing the perpetrator’s needs and collaborating with agencies to provide support. In doing so, there is a risk of losing sight of the victim’s needs and our commitment to a victim-centred approach to addressing ASB.”

73. This is a significant concession for the Council to make, and mirrors precisely my own concern here. In fact it is one of the issues we highlighted in the focus report on ASB we published in August 2023 (Out of Order, ‘Jim’s story’ on page 10).
74. The failure to take any meaningful action during this period represents a significant loss of opportunity for Ms W. It means there is uncertainty about whether the issues might have been resolved sooner had the Council considered the full range of powers it had at its disposal in a timely fashion, such as a CPN. I cannot say whether, or how, the material situation would differ for Ms W were the Council not at fault in this respect, but it creates uncertainty, and the distress and frustration Ms W has endured because of this is an injustice to her.

The Council’s handling of the ASB case review

75. Ms W formally applied for an ASB case review on 29 April. On 18 June, the Council ‘upheld’ her review, and then convened a meeting on 3 July, which was attended by officers from the Council’s housing agency, alongside Ms W.
76. The ASB case review process is, in short, as follows:

• having reported ASB, and not being satisfied it has been resolved, the victim submits an ASB case review application to one of the relevant bodies;
• the relevant body or bodies consider whether the application meets the threshold for a review. If not, they write to the victim and explain why;
• if so, the relevant bodies convene a review meeting. They consider the actions which have been taken so far, and identify whether any further action is appropriate, and/or whether the victim should be provided with additional support. They create an action plan if appropriate;
• in most cases the victim should be invited to attend the review meeting. Either way, the relevant bodies should confirm to the victim the outcome of the review;
• any action plan is implemented.

77. In this case, the Council does not appear to have made a formal decision whether Ms W’s application met the threshold for a review, and informed her of this decision, which should have been the first step. This said, it is evident the Council did accept the case review met the threshold, and so in isolation I do not consider this represents an injustice to Ms W.
78. The Council then carried out an internal investigation into how it handled Ms W's reports of ASB, and having done so, wrote to her to say it ‘upheld' the review. After this, the Council convened a review meeting to discuss this finding and create an action plan. But this meeting should have been where the actual review was carried out, not to discuss a finding the Council had already made.
79. One of the actions listed in the plan after the meeting was for the Council to ‘review the case and create an action plan’. But this had already been completed, by holding the case review, and so this action appears to make little sense.
80. Further to this, we asked the Council why it did not invite other relevant bodies to the review. In response, it said this was because the other bodies were not “subject to the review”, and that it was only the Council’s ASB team for which she had requested the review.
81. However, the purpose of the review process is for all relevant bodies to come together and decide what more they can do to resolve the ASB. It is not simply to prompt the agency which receives the application to review its own handling. Relevant bodies include not only the local authority, but also the police and NHS, both of which had been involved in Mr D’s case. The Council should therefore have invited representatives from both agencies to take part in the review.
82. Taking these points together, it appears the Council dealt with Ms W’s case review application as a form of complaint. But the ASB case review is explicitly not intended to act as an alternative or additional complaints procedure.
83. I cannot overlook that the Council did actually use the review as a way of identifying shortcomings in its handling of the case, and created an action plan as a result. Even accepting that it did not properly follow the review process, therefore, this was a positive outcome for Ms W.
84. However, I do consider the Council’s failure to involve the other relevant bodies in the review to be significant, in that it wrongly limited the scope of the review and the actions it could recommend be taken. It is too speculative for me to say what material difference this made to the outcome, but again, it creates an uncertainty, which is an injustice to Ms W.
85. I will therefore recommend the Council undertake a new review, if Ms W wishes to pursue this.
86. Separately, and notwithstanding this finding, I note Ms W says the Council has not fully implemented the action plan. However, again, this is a new matter which post-dates her complaint to the Ombudsman, and so I cannot consider it as part of this investigation.

Back to top

HOS analysis

The Council’s actions as the landlord of Mr D’s mother and Ms W

87. Similarly to the LGSCO, it is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for the HOS to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the Council to determine. The Council, however, is responsible for ensuring it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, and that it has adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so. Effective use of the ASB procedure enables councils to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of residents living in their homes. The HOS has assessed whether the Council, as a landlord and in its overall handling of the case, has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably.
88. The Council previously had an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) to manage its housing stock, Tower Hamlets Homes. The housing management service went back inhouse to the Council in April 2024. The Council has provided Tower Hamlets Homes’ Guiding Principles document for Managing Reports of Neighbour Nuisance as its procedure for dealing with reports of ASB from neighbours.
89. Following Ms W’s initial reports in July 2023, the Council provided her with diary sheets. This was appropriate as it is required to gather evidence of reported ASB and, moreover, diary sheets are highlighted in the procedure. Generally, diary sheets assist landlords to ascertain the nature, frequency and impact of ASB which in turn will inform what further action to take. It also carried out a risk assessment. This issue is considered in more detail below.
90. The procedure mentions but does not explicitly state that the Council should form an action plan in ASB cases. Following initial investigation of ASB reports, landlords should formulate an action plan and share this with the person who has reported the ASB. Ideally the action plan should be agreed with the person. In this case, the Council did not form an action plan for Ms W’s case. This may have included considering mediation. Mediation at an early stage can help neighbours understand the experiences of each other, reach an agreed solution, and prevent problems escalating.
91. The procedure states that “through the duration of the case the complainant must be kept informed of actions and progress with the case” and “Where possible the frequency and preferred method of communication with the complainant should be agreed”. The Council did not follow this initially as it did not update Ms W on the actions it was taking in response to her reports until sending the stage 1 complaint response of 29 September 2023.
92. The stage 1 response noted the Council had sent warning letters to Mr D’s mother, as its tenant, which stated it may take action against her tenancy. The procedure notes that “the tenancy/leasehold agreement is the starting point for dealing with reports of nuisance”. It was appropriate that the Council warned Mr D’s mother in the first instance as her agreement outlines her responsibilities. Tenants are responsible for the behaviour of household members.
93. Ms W continued to make reports over the following few months. She reiterated that she did not feel safe and was anxious about the situation. She stated she reported incidents to the police following which the Council obtained information from the police. In January 2024, the Council advised that it was investigating and liaising with other agencies. Whilst it was limited in the information it could disclose, the Council it did not make clear how it intended to resolve her case. Nor did it acknowledge that Ms W felt unsafe which demonstrated a lack of empathy. This contributed to her sense of inaction by the Council especially given the number of reports she was making.
94. Ms W continued to make reports during 2024 until the stage 2 complaint response. It is evident that the Council liaised with agencies involved with Mr D during this period. The procedure states that the Council should assess the support needs of perpetrators. However, there is no evidence that this was part of an overarching action plan that was intended to resolve Ms W’s case. The Council also did not make clear what action it would take in response to new incidents reported. In not doing so, Ms W was left feeling unheard in her reports and complaint, escalating the level of dissatisfaction. It was only at the ASB case review that the Council decided to agree an action plan.
95. In its response of 21 June 2024, the Council stressed that it was working with Mr D and his support agencies. However, it also had a responsibility to support the resident, especially as she said she felt unsafe. Other than the risk assessment of May 2024, it is not evident that the Council met this responsibility.
96. Councils should take an incremental approach to action when seeking to resolve ASB cases. Even though the Council liaised with Mr D and support agencies, it missed opportunities to raise Ms W’s further reports with his mother, as its tenant. This applied even if Mr D had moved out of the block. This is because his mother is still responsible for the behaviour of her visitors. It had options such as raising Ms W’s further reports, discussing what behaviour would be acceptable and formalising an agreement, reminding her of her tenancy responsibilities, and issuing a warning or otherwise making clear what possible consequences there were if reports about Mr D continued.
97. In summary, the HOS finds that there were failings in the Council’s overall management of Ms W’s ASB case. It did not consistently follow the procedure in its Guiding Principles document. In particular, it did not respond to all Ms W’s reports and update her on the action it was taking, it did not formulate a clear action plan, and did not consider the impact on her and provide support accordingly. These failings caused Ms W to sense of lack of action by the Council and be uncertain how it was resolving her case. This contributed to the overall distress and inconvenience she experienced for which both Ombudsmen have jointly proposed remedies.

Back to top

Joint analysis

The Council’s assessment of the risk to Ms W

98. The Government has published statutory guidance for ASB professionals. At page 27 it says:

“It is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victim(s), and any potential vulnerabilities, when they receive a complaint about anti-social behaviour. This should be the starting point of a case-management approach to dealing with anti-social complaints. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported anti-social behaviour is having on the victim(s), particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim, either as a one-off incident or as part of a targeted and persistent campaign of anti-social behaviour against the victim(s).”

99. The Guiding Principles document also recognises the need for the Council to carry out risk assessments. It states that after interviewing the person reporting ASB, it should define the problem and the severity of the case, and identify any risks to the person and type of Victim Support required.
100. Part of Ms W’s stage 2 complaint to the Council was that it had not carried out such a risk assessment. In fact this was not true – the Council did carry out a formal risk assessment on 25 July 2023, the day after receiving Ms W’s first report, although it appears she was unaware of this. Either way, we frequently criticise councils for not carrying out such risk assessments at all, and so this is encouraging to see.
101. The initial risk assessment concluded there was only a low risk to Ms W. This appears to have been a reasonable position for the Council to take at the time, because the evidence Ms W had submitted showed Mr D’s behaviour was not threatening or targeted at her.
102. This changed fairly quickly though, and over the following months Ms W frequently reported feeling harassed and threatened by Mr D. However, the Council did not update its assessment until 14 May, at which point it decided she was now at high risk because of Mr D’s behaviour.
103. While the statutory guidance does not explicitly state councils should update their risk assessments during a case, it does recommend assessments should be “continuous”, implying this expectation. Given the tone of Ms W’s reports shifted significantly soon after the Council made its initial assessment, we consider this should have prompted it to update the assessment earlier than 14 May. That it did not is fault.
104. It is again difficult to precisely define the impact this fault has had on Ms W’s situation. We do not consider, for example, the Council’s failure to act robustly against Mr D was obviously linked to the lack of an up-to-date risk assessment. But we do note another part of Ms W’s stage 2 complaint was that it had not referred her to Victim Support; and that the Council did, eventually, make such a referral on the same date it updated the risk assessment.
105. The Council’s Guiding Principles document states that it should refer complainants to Victim Support. It therefore should therefore have referred Ms W to Victim Support at an earlier point, especially as she stated she felt threatened by Mr D.
106. We infer, therefore, the Council’s referral was only prompted by the new assessment, and so it appears reasonable to conclude Ms W would have received this support earlier had there been no delay by the Council. This is an injustice to her, and we will again consider what the Council should to remedy this in a later section of this decision statement.

Complaint handling

107. Ms W submitted a formal complaint about the handling of her ASB case on 17 September 2023. The Council responded on 29 September 2023. The Council’s complaint policies confirm it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. However, it endeavours to respond to as many housing complaints within 10 working days.
108. The Council sent the stage 1 response within its timeframe for responding, and therefore adequately prompt. Regarding the content of the response, it advised of the action it had taken on her ASB case up until that point in time and of what further action it would be taking. It thereby used the complaint process to manage Ms W’s expectations about the handling of the case, which was appropriate.
109. Ms W continued to make reports to the Council. However, she escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 February 2023 as she remained dissatisfied with its response. The Council reviews and responds to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In more complex cases, it may extend the timeframe by 10 working days.
110. In this case, the Council significantly delayed in sending the stage 2 response. There is also no evidence that it sent holding responses or otherwise managed Ms W’s expectations as to when she would receive the response. However, in the stage 2 response it apologised for the delay and offered a remedy of £100.
111. This offer is within the typical range the LGSCO would recommend for the time and trouble experienced by a complainant because of poor complaint handling by a council.
112. It is also comparable to awards made by the HOS in cases of service failure where the overall outcome for the resident was not significantly affected. Taken together with the apology, the Council offered redress that was proportionate to the nature and scale of its poor complaint handling at stage 2.
113. We therefore consider the Council has provided an appropriate remedy for this element of injustice, and will not recommend it take any additional steps.

Conclusions

114. The LGSCO has found fault by the Council, because it took too long to take robust action against Mr D, and because it did not properly follow the ASB case review process.
115. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the Council in its actions as a landlord of Mr D’s mother and Mrs W.
116. The LGSCO and HOS jointly find fault by the Council because it did not update its vulnerability risk assessment of Ms W in the light of the new information, and because of the delay in responding to her complaint.
117. These faults caused Ms W injustice, because of the distress, frustration and uncertainty they caused.
118. In the LGSCO’s and HOS’s opinion, and in accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Council’s offer of £100 was reasonable redress for its fault in respect of its complaints handling. However, we have detailed below the actions the Council should or must take to resolve the remaining injustice to Ms W.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders and recommendations

119. The Housing Ombudsman Service orders that within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should:

• review this investigation’s findings to identify what lessons it can learn. It should have particular regard to ensuring it updates and adequately manages the expectations of victims of ASB, it formulates action plans and risk assessments that evolve as circumstances change, and it understands the impact and provides support accordingly.

120. The Council should provide the Housing Ombudsman Service with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
121. The Housing Ombudsman Service recommends that the Council pay Ms W the £100 offered at stage 2 for its complaint handling failures if it has not already done so.

LGSCO recommended action

122. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should:

• contact Ms W and other relevant bodies to make arrangements to carry out a fresh ASB case review, in accordance with the statutory guidance. As part of the review, the Council should ensure it properly considers whether it is appropriate to use any of its specific ASB powers to tackle Mr D’s behaviour;

123. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council should:

• circulate detailed guidance to all relevant staff, to ensure they understand the purpose and process of an ASB case review.

124. The Council should provide the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Joint LGSCO and HOS recommended action

125. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should:

• offer to pay Ms W £300, to reflect her distress and frustration arising from the uncertainty caused by the fault we have identified in this case; and
• write a formal letter of apology to her for the same reason. The LGSCO publishes guidance on remedies which sets out its expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.

126. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

127. We have completed our investigation with a finding of fault.

Investigator decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman