Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of Anti-Social Behaviour. Mr X said this caused him anxiety and distress. There was fault in the way the Council delayed its investigation, communication and complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mr X and he was put to time and trouble to complain. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, reconsider Mr X’s Anti-Social Behaviour reports and provide training to its staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB). Mr X said this caused him anxiety and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about how the Council considered his ASB reports.
5. I have not investigated any reference to building control breaches. This is because the Council has not had an opportunity to consider this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

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. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant (although we cannot investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

11. 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.

12. 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’.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. In August 2023, the Ombudsman issued practitioner guidance on ASB.
18. The Council complaint process states the complainant would receive a response within 20 working days.

What happened

19. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
20. Mr X reported ASB from his neighbour in February 2024. The Council considered the report and decided it needed more information from Mr X. The Council wrote to Mr X asking him for more information.
21. At the end of February 2024, Mr X complained to the Council. He complained the Council had not acted on his reported ASB and communication with the Council was difficult.
22. Mr X chased the Council in March 2024.
23. Mr X continued to chase the Council in May 2024 and provided more evidence.
24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in June 2024. The Council said it could not locate the record of the call but took Mr X’s feedback. The response said it would chase Mr X’s ASB complaint.
25. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council response. At the start of July 2024, he asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two. Mr X said he had not heard from the ASB team and communication from the Council was difficult.
26. The Council ASB investigator contacted Mr X for more details. The Council recorded Mr X told the Council to write to him and ended the call. The Council noted it did not have details of the nuisance and closed the case.
27. The Council sent a further complaint response at the end of July 2024. The Council apologised for the delay in the complaint response. The response confirmed it passed the ASB matter to the ASB service. The service had closed the matter, as Mr X failed to engage with the investigation.
28. Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint to stage two. He said the Council had ignored contact and he did not engage because the Council called him without his prior knowledge.
29. The Council issued its stage two response in September 2024. The Council said the stage one response was correct so it would not complete a stage two.
30. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mr X would like the Council to deal with the ASB concerns.
31. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted it “ignored and missed” a lot of Mr X’s contact. The Council accepted the delays in complaint handling caused issues in its ASB response, and this was service failure. The Council offered £200 for the delays in its ASB response.

My findings

Anti-Social Behaviour

32. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to properly explain a decision it has made. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can identify any consequences of the fault and ask the council in question to address these.
33. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, and nor do we offer a right of appeal against their decisions. If a council has made a decision without fault, then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
34. In a case like this, that means it is not for us to make our own decision if a person is suffering actionable ASB, nor what the appropriate response to that behaviour should be. These are matters of professional judgement which the Council, alone, may decide.
35. The Council accepted, in its response, delays in the complaint process impacted the ASB investigation. The Council accepted in its response to my enquiries, it delayed its ASB action and closed the case after it received no information for 60 days. The Council offered £200 for this fault.
36. The evidence shows the Council has taken very little documented action on Mr X’s reports of ASB. This is not a criticism; again, it is for the Council to decide what to do when someone reports ASB, and this can legitimately be nothing, if the Council considers that is the correct approach. However, the Council has not evidenced an investigation.
37. It is reasonable for the Council to ask Mr X for more information following his initial report. However, and the Council has accepted, Mr X continued to chase the Council, and it did not act. Mr X was chasing the Council and if the Council engaged with him, it would have had the information needed for any ASB investigation. It is unacceptable for a Council to ignore reported ASB, as its response to my enquiry confirmed. The Council has a duty to tackle ASB and it failed Mr X in this duty. This is fault, frustrating Mr X. The £200 the Council offered is not a suitable remedy for this injustice.

Complaint handling

38. The Council complaint process confirmed Mr X should have received a response within 20 working days. The Council took four months to provide a response. Then issued a more detailed response a month later. This is more than the 20 days set out in the policy. This delay is fault and Mr X was put to time and trouble to complain.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for the fault identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £300 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the Council fault.
• Pay Mr X £200 as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble he has spent pursuing this complaint.
• Consider Mr X’s ASB reports, clearly documenting the Council’s decisions and actions.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of recording and clearly documenting its actions.
• Provide guidance to relevant staff on the Council’s ASB duties, including the importance of engaging with people reporting the ASB.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of effective complaint handling.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman