Summary: Mr B complained that the Council did not take effective action when he complained about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the play area near his house. There was fault by the Council. Although it took action to respond Mr B’s issues, it did not liaise with the Police who were also involved, nor tell Mr B he could ask for an ASB case review. The Council took too long to respond to Mr B’s complaints and referred him to the Housing Ombudsman when he cannot use that service. The Council’s shortcomings caused Mr B frustration, but it is unlikely that the Council would have taken any different action to tackle the problems. The Council will apologise to Mr B and remind its staff of its ASB powers, the ASB case review and that owner-occupiers cannot complain to the Housing Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has failed to take effective action to deal with his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the play area outside his house.
2. Mr B says as a result of the Council’s inaction, he is suffering from ASB, there has been damage to his car, and there have been altercations with people using the play area.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. 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)
6. Mr B’s complaint refers to issues dating back to 2022 when he first submitted a residents’ petition to the Council about issues at the play area. I have not investigated what action the Council took then because Mr B did not complain to the Ombudsman until August 2024, and there is no good reason why he did not complain to us sooner.
7. Mr B complained again to the Council about the ASB in June 2024 and I have investigated the Council’s action from that time to February 2025, when it responded to his stage two complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

10. 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.
11. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 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. In 2023, the Ombudsman published a focus report, ‘Out of Order: learning lessons from complaints about antisocial behaviour’. This sets out councils’ powers, and what the Ombudsman expects, in more detail.

The Council’s policies

17. The Council’s ASB policy sets out how it will deal with reports of ASB. It says its Community Safety Enforcement Team are a highly visible patrol service that investigate complaints of ASB in public spaces. It says the Council will agree an action plan with the person reporting the ASB, keep them informed, and notify them in writing when it has closed the case.
18. The ASB policy also says a person can request an ASB case review if they have reported an incident more than three times, with at least one report being in the last six months.
19. The Council’s complaint handling policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint to it within five working days, and then aim to provide a full response within 10 working days. It says it will let the complainant know if it needs longer to respond.
20. The complainant can then ask for a stage two review. The Council will review the complaint at a more senior level and respond to the complainant within 20 working days or let them known if it needs longer to respond.

What happened

21. Mr B is an owner-occupier. He lives in a residential area. There is a children’s play area/ outdoor exercise area close to his house. Mr B says he started to complain to the Council about disturbance from people using the play area in 2020.
22. In 2022, Mr B sent the Council a petition signed by residents complaining about disturbance from the play area. The Council patrolled the area, but it did not witness any ASB. The Council put up signs to say that no ball games were allowed but told Mr B that these were only a request and the rule was not enforceable. It told Mr B to continue to report problems and tell the Police of any criminal damage.
23. Mr B says he started to complain again to the Council at the end of June 2024. He said the Council told him that it can only take action against Council tenants, and the people Mr B complained about were a mixture of social housing tenants, private tenant, and owner-occupiers.
24. Mr B again complaint to the Council in July 2024. He said the Police was now involved as people were deliberately damaging his car, there had been altercations with other people using the area, and he was concerned about people loitering in the area at night. His email says he sent the Council evidence of this.
25. The Council’s community safety team started patrolling the area again, including in the evenings, but it did not witness any ASB. It said it had made enquiries with the residents earlier that year and nobody had reported concerns about ASB.
26. In mid-August, Mr B complained to the Council that it had not done enough to deal with his reports of ASB.
27. The Council looked at how it might change the area to discourage any problem behaviour. It decided it could consider further planting in the area to divide up the space and this might discourage football being played there and so annoyance from stray footballs.
28. Mr B agreed that would be a good idea. He also told the Council that some youths had threatened him and a ball had caused damage to his car. The Council asked Mr B about this, but he did not have any details of who had caused the damage.
29. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint towards the end of October. It set out that it had patrolled the area but had not witnessed ASB, he should report criminal activity to the Police, it will consider landscaping, and he should continue to report any further problems.
30. Towards the end of December, Mr B had not heard further from the Council and so he asked it to consider his complaint at stage two of its process. The Council responded to Mr B on 25 February. It apologised for the delay. The Council said it had planted part of the area to make it harder to play football and it will look at extending this. It had found no evidence of ASB and Mr B should report criminal damage to the Police. If he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response, he could take his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mr B an injustice?

31. The Council responded to Mr B’s report of ASB and kept him reasonably informed of what it was doing in terms of patrolling the area, and considering changes to the landscaping. It set out its action plan and shared this with Mr B, and this was in line with its policy.
32. I can see that disturbance from the play area would be annoying and frustrating, but it is unlikely to be ASB such that the Council could take formal action. However, in July and October, Mr B also reported more troubling incidents including intimidation and potentially criminal activity. This could be ASB, and the Council and the Police have powers that could deal with this. The Council should be aware that it can take action even where the Police does not have enough evidence to proceed with criminal prosecution. I note the Council asked Mr B for more details of the alleged perpetrators. However, I would have expected the Council to consider liaising with the Police to see if its investigation had uncovered any more information. I cannot see any evidence of this in the Council’s case notes, nor in its correspondence. This was fault by the Council.
33. The Council closed the case, but it should have told Mr B that he could request an ASB case review. He had met the criteria to request this in July when he had complained to the Council and the Police. This was fault by the Council.
34. A council can refer a matter for an ASB case review at any time. Where a council has failed to tell the complainant of their right to request this review, we sometimes recommend the Council conduct the review now. However, in this case, the majority of the behaviour Mr B complains arises from the use of the play area and is unlikely to be ASB. His reports of more serious problems appear to be much more isolated. Mr B missed the opportunity to ask for an ASB case review, but I am not recommending that the Council do this now because it is unlikely to result in any further enforcement action.
35. The Council took too long to respond to both Mr B’s stage one and stage two complaints. I cannot see that it told Mr B that it needed longer to respond. It also referred to Mr B to the Housing Ombudsman Service to pursue matters further. However, Mr B is an owner-occupier and so cannot use the Housing Ombudsman Service. There was fault in the Council’s complaint handling. This is likely to have caused Mr B frustration, but I note that he was aware of his right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and so the impact of the Council’s mistakes was limited.
36. Mr B understood from the Council that it could only take enforcement action against council tenants. There is no note on the case notes of the Council telling Mr B this, but to be clear, the Council is not restricted in using its ASB powers to only council tenants. It can take enforcement action against any perpetrators of ASB.

Back to top

Action

37. The Council should within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the fault I have found. 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.
• Share this decision with staff involved in dealing with reports of ASB and remind it that it should consider liaising with the police where appropriate, and that it should refer complainants to the right to request an ASB review.
• Share this decision with staff that handle complaints, and remind it that it should not refer owner-occupiers to the Housing Ombudsman Service, as they cannot use that service. It should refer owner-occupiers who complain about ASB to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman