Summary: Mx Y complained about the Council’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour they made it aware of. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council communicated poorly with Mx Y and failed to ensure meetings it arranged focused on the behaviour Mx Y reported. These faults caused Mx Y an injustice, as avoidable distress. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to take to remedy Mx Y’s injustice and improve its service to avoid a repeat of the faults.

The complaint

1. Mx Y complained about the Council’s response to reports of anti-social behaviour they made it aware of. This included that it failed to ensure a co-ordinated, effective response to tackle the behaviour after arranging a case review, attended also by Mx Y’s landlord and the police.
2. Mx Y said as a result the anti-social behaviour continued, causing harm to their mental health and wellbeing.

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 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)
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. I considered evidence provided by Mx Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I also gave Mx Y and the Council chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I considered any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before finalising the content of the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal considerations

8. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). 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 an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about the 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 (‘the Act’).

9. The Act defines anti-social behaviour as:

• conduct causing, or likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in their occupation of residential premises;
• conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. 

10. The Act introduced powers for agencies involved in tackling ASB. These include the power to issue a community protection notice (CPN). Councils and the police can issue a 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, requires 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.
11. The Act also introduced a way to review the handling of reports of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, previously known as the ‘community trigger’.
12. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which include the council and police) 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.
13. If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies carry out a review. They should share information, consider any action taken so far, decide whether they should do more, and then tell the complainant the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan.
14. We can only consider the action of a council during an ASB case review. We cannot investigate or make findings about the contributions made by other relevant bodies, such as the police or social landlords.

Council policy

15. On its website the Council publishes its anti-social behaviour policy. It provides a definition of ASB as at paragraph 9 above. The policy says the Council recognises the severe impact ASB can have on wellbeing. It says that citizens can report ASB to it directly via its website or by telephone.
16. The Council says: “as a local authority we have a responsibility to tackle ASB in the public realm. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires responsible authorities to work with the police and other agencies to reduce crime and disorder in the local realm. As a Council we have a range of powers we can use to tackle ASB in the public realm”.
17. It says that when investigating ASB it will:

• speak directly to all parties to understand different perspectives;
• carry out interviews;
• collate evidence including asking victims to complete diary sheets;
• use mediation where possible;
• give written or verbal warnings to perpetrators;
• ask perpetrators to enter Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or Acceptable Behaviour Agreements, where they agree to make changes to their behaviour;
• refer perpetrators to support services where appropriate;
• ask the police to disclose information.

18. It says in addition the Council can undertake measures including:

• carrying out an ASB risk assessment to inform an action plan;
• putting in place support where victims are “vulnerable” or at “high risk of harm”;
• giving attention to any support needs the perpetrator may have, but that it will balance this with “firm action where necessary”;
• keeping victims of ASB updated in line with any action plan.

19. Elsewhere the policy says the Council will work with “partners” and discuss cases at a multi-agency forum. It also explains that those who are victims of ASB can ask for a review where they have promptly reported more than three incidents in the previous six months about the same behaviour.
20. In addition, the Council also holds Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (CMARAC). On its website the Council publishes information about MARAC meetings that specifically consider cases involving domestic violence. It does not publicise the CMARAC meetings.
21. However, other authorities that do publicise such meetings usually describe them as multi-agency meetings where participants share information about complex or high-risk cases of ASB involving vulnerable victims or perpetrators.

Key facts

22. Mx Y lives in a block of flats in the Council’s area, rented and managed by a housing association (‘the landlord’).
23. Mx Y has had cause to report ASB or nuisance from their neighbours over several years. This investigation focused on events after April 2024, when Mx Y began making a series of reports to their landlord about ASB. Mx Y made allegations about multiple neighbours, although many of their reports focused on one occupier of the flats in particular (Mr X). But in addition, Mx Y reported some incidents involving a local resident who lives outside the block (Mr Z). While a third source of distress came from problems associated with street homeless individuals entering the block. They had been responsible for ASB by urinating, defecating and using drugs in the communal areas.
24. Between April and August 2024 Mx Y also contacted the Council and alerted it to many of the reports of ASB they were making. During this investigation the Council has sent us multiple emails from Mx Y reporting specific incidents. I note these were not all initially addressed to the Council, with Mx Y also reporting incidents to their landlord and the police.
25. The Council did not provide a chronology setting out when it received each report, nor how it responded to each one. But one email Mx Y sent in September 2024 provided screenshots indicating they had completed the Council’s online reporting tool for incidents of ASB eight times during May and June 2024.
26. In July 2024 Mx Y asked for an ASB case review. The Council took this request as being about ASB by Mr X. However, Mx Y quickly wrote back and said they wanted the review to also consider concerns about other residents in the block and Mr Z.
27. The case review took place in August 2024. The minutes show that Mx Y spoke to the review and focused on the reports made about Mr X. The landlord told the review that Mx Y’s reports formed part of a wider number of reports it received about ASB from residents. It said it had conducted multiple visits to the block. It did not comment on whether it considered Mx Y a victim of ASB. It noted Mx Y contacted it often and implied this made it harder to support them. It also noted Mx Y would act as a voice for the block and raise issues affecting other residents, such as issues with rough sleepers gaining access.
28. At the end of August 2024, the Council wrote to Mx Y and advised the outcome of the ASB case review. It said the panel hearing the case had noted Mx Y listing recent incidents and their feeling the landlord and the police were blaming each other for not acting. It noted the police service had explained it was still investigating one potential crime. While the landlord had set out in general terms the steps it had taken to respond to Mx Y’s concerns.
29. The Council said the Panel had recommended:

• that Mx Y’s landlord refer reports of ASB at the block to the CMARAC panel. The panel would consider these reports from September 2024 onward;
• the landlord “explore a transfer” for Mx Y and communicate monthly with them; and
• Mx Y should continue to engage with support services.

30. Immediately after the review in August 2024 Mx Y sent another email saying they had requested a further review. They told me this was because the first review had only considered their complaints about the actions of Mr X. They also wanted a review to consider the actions of Mr Z and the impact of rough sleepers entering the communal areas. So, they completed two further referral requests which the Council sent to me. The Council has not commented on how it responded to these. But it has said that it accepted a further request by Mx Y for an ASB review in January 2025.
31. Also, at the end of August 2024, the Housing Ombudsman Service upheld a complaint Mx Y made about their landlord. Mx Y shared this decision with the Council. The Housing Ombudsman found the landlord had not handled reports of ASB properly and was at fault for poor record keeping. It said there was “no evidence of what action plan was or is in place to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports”. So, it required the landlord:

• to review its response to Mx Y’s reports of ASB;
• write to them with the outcome of that; and
• to act in accord with the outcome of the ASB case review.

32. Mx Y did not consider the actions agreed following the case review went far enough. So, they appealed this. They had wanted the review to consider the inadequacy of the landlord’s investigation and impact of the ASB on them. Mx Y explained it had impacted their ability to study and caused them to run up debt they could not repay.
33. A senior officer from the Council’s community safety team responded. They said they considered the response of the review proportionate. They explained it was not the job of the review to consider past failings. So, it could not recommend compensation to Mx Y for any past failings in investigation. Their response also noted Mx Y had sent dozens of emails in connection with the review.
34. Around the same time, in September 2024, the Council warned Mx Y about the volume of correspondence they sent to the Council. It said they made “excessive contact by email before allowing sufficient time for a response” and took a “scattergun approach” towards communication copying in multiple parties. It advised Mx Y the Council could potentially take measures to limit their contact with it.
35. In response to my enquiries the Council said that “multiple times” it had told Mx Y to report incidents of ASB to their landlord as the ‘lead agency’ investigating. It provided me evidence showing its officers considered their reports were for the landlord to respond to. Also, some communication to the landlord where the Council explained this. It said that if the ‘lead agency’ found it could not deal with the matters reported then it could raise the case at CMARAC meetings.

Events following the review

36. The CMARAC meeting considered reports of ASB at the block where Mx Y lives at meetings held monthly between September 2024 and February 2025. At the September 2024 meeting the landlord and police provided a summary of the reports each had received from Mx Y and others in the block. The landlord said it was considering its next steps and said it would provide a chronology of reports at the next meeting.
37. It went on to provide its chronology at the next CMARAC meeting held in October 2024. The chronology document listed multiple reports of ASB between April and August 2024, made by Mx Y and others. However, the reports in this document are far fewer than those indicated in the emails Mx Y has sent to me and those sent to me by the Council.
38. The chronology noted reports of ASB by individual occupiers and the issues affecting the communal areas in the block. The landlord made general statements that it had interviewed residents in the block, had given warnings about behaviour where appropriate and advised residents to report crimes to the police. The Council suggested the landlord should make more use of CCTV to try and identify perpetrators of individual incidents. It suggested the landlord might consider drawing up a “neighbourhood agreement” and / or asking residents to complete acceptable behaviour agreements to cover the block. The police also agreed to take further action to tackle ASB happening outside the block. The discussion also noted Mx Y’s reports about Mr Z.
39. At the November 2024 CMARAC both the landlord and the police reported a reduction in the extent of ASB reported inside and outside the block.
40. In January 2025 a CMARAC noted further reports alleging ASB by Mr X. The landlord said Mx Y was not engaging with an action plan. It did not record details of the action plan, nor why it considered Mx Y had not engaged with it.
41. In February 2025, the landlord expressed further concern at the number of contacts Mx Y made. The Council noted Mx Y had requested a further ASB review.
42. I am aware that contemporaneous with the above, Mx Y continued to report incidents of ASB to the Council as well as their landlord.

Mx Y’s complaint

43. At the end of August 2024 Mx Y complained they had not heard the outcome of the ASB review held earlier in the month. They said ASB continued and it had a negative impact on their mental health. They complained about the review process, saying there were around 16 people present and they could not explain the impact of ASB on them. They said they had repeatedly contacted the Council about ASB since May 2024 and had received no reply. They wanted a different case officer.
44. The Council replied in October 2024. It said that Mx Y’s landlord had responsibility for responding to and dealing with complaints of ASB. It said the Council had carried out an ASB review and Mx Y had taken up the offer to appeal the outcome of that. It said the problems in the block of flats were ‘multi-faceted’ and so required consideration at the CMARAC meetings. In its response the Council cautioned that Mx Y had sent over 85 emails in six weeks and they needed to target correspondence to relevant people and give time for replies. It cautioned the Council might seek to limit Mx Y’s communications.
45. In November Mx Y asked to escalate their complaint, saying the Council ignored ASB they continued to experience. Mx Y said the Council’s case officer had not replied to a report made via the website.
46. In its final reply the Council said Mx Y’s landlord had responsibility “for enforcing tenancy agreements, engaging with residents, collaborating with external agencies, implementing security measures and taking legal action when ASB is reported”. It said the ASB review had considered the landlord’s response to Mx Y’s reports which had included interviewing residents, liaising with the police and inviting residents to sign acceptable behaviour agreements. But the Council did not consider “all reasonable steps were taken to address ASB” and so the case went to the CMARAC meetings for consideration. The response also added that Mx Y’s landlord would explore them transferring to another property.

My findings

47. I began my analysis by considering existing Council policy which explains how it will respond to reports of ASB. I had the following concerns:

• first, the policy does not help those who report ASB by someone living in social housing. It does not explain how the Council may respond differently and expect the social landlord to lead an investigation. I do not consider such an approach inherently flawed, although the Council may have to investigate directly in exceptional circumstances. This is because social landlords will have powers to tackle ASB, perpetrated by their tenants. In particular, they will have the power to trigger repossession clauses in tenancy agreements. But the Council’s policy does not explain that it might take a different approach in such cases. So, a tenant of social housing may look at that policy and expect the Council to initiate its own investigation given what the policy says;
• second, the policy does not explain what enforcement powers the Council has where it does begin an investigation into ASB. This too is unhelpful to those reporting ASB, whether they are a tenant of a social landlord or not.

48. The policy therefore offered little advice to someone in Mx Y’s position. In which case the Council needed to be clear with them about its role when they contacted it around May 2024 to report ASB. I did not find the Council did this. I saw no evidence that between May and August 2024, the Council explained to Mx Y what it saw as the potential scope of its involvement. Nor where it explained any powers it had to deal with the ASB they reported. This omission was a fault.
49. Further, I could find no evidence the Council adopted a systematic approach to the contacts Mx Y had with it during that time. It provided no log of the contacts Mx Y had with it. Nor any detail of the replies (if any) it gave to Mx Y in response to their contacts, before the ASB case review. That too was a failure in communication and justified a finding of fault.
50. These poor communications caused Mx Y injustice. I could understand why the Council saw only a limited, or no, role in investigating the issues they reported. But it needed to explain this to them. Not doing so caused distress to Mx Y as they did not know if or how the Council might help them.
51. Turning to the action taken by the Council, it saw its role limited to that of arranging, taking part in and communicating the outcome of the anti-social behaviour case review. On balance, I considered this a fair position for it to take. I noted the Council could have considered using its own powers to investigate ASB. But most of the reports Mx Y made concerned Mr X, Mr Z and other residents of the social housing complex. Reasonably, and in line with what I wrote at paragraph 47, the Council therefore saw Mx Y’s landlord as much better placed to investigate Mx Y’s reports. Or else, the Council had to defer to the police to investigate any potential crimes Mx Y reported.
52. However, I did have a further concern about the scope of the ASB review. The Council knew in July 2024 that Mx Y made multiple reports, not just about Mr X. I could not see a clear audit trail explaining why the case review did not encompass concerns Mx Y had about the actions of Mr Z or issues affecting the communal areas of the block. This too was poor communication from the Council, for which I found it at fault causing Mx Y further unnecessary distress.
53. Turning to the conduct of the review, I understood the point made by the Council in reply to Mx Y’s appeal, that it was a forward-looking exercise. Its focus would therefore be on agreeing a plan of action to try and put a stop to the nuisance behaviour reported. But I considered that to plan effectively, the attendees at the review also had to look backwards to some extent. They needed to understand why it was, at the time the review took place, there had been no enforcement action taken. Was it because of a lack of evidence of ASB or because the behaviour did not meet the threshold for enforcement. I considered an understanding of these matters crucial to underpin an action plan.
54. Having read the minute of the ASB case review I was unclear what the view of the landlord was on the incidents Mx Y reported. It was not clear if the landlord believed Mx Y was the victim of ASB. Or, if it had not come to that view, what it had done to gather evidence to ascertain this. For example, by explaining whom it had spoken to in the block, or if it had viewed any relevant CCTV footage it might have. It came as no surprise to me to read the Housing Ombudsman decision of around the same time. This found a lack of focus by the landlord on basic matters including recording the incidents Mx Y reported and the steps taken to investigate.
55. I considered the Council, as a key member of the review, could have done more to focus on these matters. The action plan that followed the case review did not include these fundamental steps necessary for the investigation of any report of ASB. This was a fault.
56. The injustice this caused Mx Y was that of further distress. They used a procedure designed to help bring a resolution to the ASB they reported that only resulted in more avoidable frustration and distress.
57. But that said, I considered two factors mitigated some of that distress. First, that the Council was only a contributor to the ASB review process. While it convenes and chairs reviews it does not have binding powers over other participants. It could not hold the landlord to account therefore, in the way of the Housing Ombudsman. Nor could the Council ever require Mx Y’s landlord to take any specific steps.
58. Second, whatever the shortcomings of the review, the Council still recognised the need for a continuing consideration of Mx Y’s reports. It decided the focus for tackling the ASB should be through CMARAC meetings, which it held from September 2024 onward. I noted here a concern that currently the Council does not publish information about CMARAC meetings – their role, function, membership and so on. I therefore assumed the role of the CMARAC was as set out in paragraph 21.
59. Next, I considered how effective a resolution the CMARAC meetings provided. Unfortunately, at times the minutes only served to reinforce a sense of drift in the investigation of Mx Y’s reports, as with the ASB case review. I got little sense after reading the minutes of what the landlord or the police had done to actively investigate ASB reported by Mx Y. Or the reports of any ASB by any other occupants of the block.
60. I also found it disappointing there was no discussion of the Housing Ombudsman findings, despite all parties knowing about them. These put the landlord on notice it needed to raise its game in responding to Mx Y’s reports of ASB. But neither the landlord nor other attendees at the CMARAC included the findings in their discussion. While there was reference to the landlord having an “action plan” to tackle ASB I could not see what this consisted of. And by the early months of 2025, I noted the focus of discussion moving away from the matters Mx Y reported, to concerns about the number and content of Mx Y’s reports.
61. My investigation could not consider events beyond the final response given to Mx Y’s complaint, or the actions the Council promised further to that response. So, I could make no finding on whether the Council was further at fault for its dealings with Mx Y into 2025. But my analysis above led me to think the CMARAC strayed from the original point of the referral. This should have been to focus on the fundamental question about whether ASB occurred in the block where Mx Y lived? And if so, what could be done about it?
62. I repeat the Council did not (and does not) have the power to direct the landlord to take any specific action in response to reports made by Mx Y or any other tenant. But I considered part of its role was to try and prevent such loss of focus. That this happened was a further reason to find fault with the Council. Although I accepted the injustice caused as further distress to Mx Y once again mitigated to some extent, because the Council lacked statutory powers to require the landlord to take any specific enforcement action. It would always be Mx Y’s landlord that had the primary responsibility to tackle ASB reported as originating from other tenants of the social housing complex and to keep the communal areas safe and secure..
63. Finally, I recognised that Mx Y’s methods of communication were sometimes unhelpful and even counter-productive towards a resolution of the problems they reported. With multiple addressees copied in, it was not always been clear to me who their emails were addressed to, nor why they copied other recipients into those emails. And often Mx Y sent multiple emails following a single incident, where they added only limited comment. The Council said Mx Y’s communications caused challenges for it in responding, and I was sympathetic to this.
64. But that said, I considered Mx Y’s presentation may also have reflected their distress, caused by the perception that no-one was tackling the problems they reported and dealing with them. I therefore asked the Council to keep this in mind as it had continuing contact with Mx Y. I recommended action that I hoped would help re-set Mx Y’s communications with the Council moving forward, which the Council agreed, with the details of this set out below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

65. In paragraphs 50, 52, 56 and 62 I set out where fault by the Council caused injustice to Mx Y. The Council has accepted these findings, and to remedy that injustice, it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. apologise to Mx Y accepting the findings of this investigation and taking account of the content of paragraph 66 below;
2. pay Mx Y £400 in recognition of their distress;
3. arrange for a senior officer with responsibility for responding to ASB reports, preferably without prior involvement in this case to meet with Mx Y for the purpose set out in paragraph 67 and 68.
66. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance when making the apology it has agreed.
67. The meeting recommended at paragraph 65c) should:
1. provide an opportunity for the Council to understand Mx Y’s current concerns with ASB and agree a summary of those concerns;
2. look to agree with Mx Y an arrangement for communication moving forward. This should help reduce any confusion and administrative burden for the Council caused through excessive contact, while also recognising Mx Y’s need to have reports of ASB acknowledged and responded to appropriately.
68. Further to the meeting the officer should produce a report, within 20 working days of the meeting, that it will share with Mx Y and consider:
1. if the landlord has awareness of the issues raised by Mx Y and understand what action plan it has in place to investigate and try to resolve their concerns;
2. whether the threshold is met to offer further consideration of ASB via the review process (taking account of any further reviews held since the events covered by this complaint);
3. if the Council can directly investigate any of Mx Y’s concerns using its own powers to tackle ASB, given their long-standing nature and known past failings of the landlord.
69. In addition, the Council has agreed to make service improvements following this complaint. Within three months of this decision, it will:
1. revise its current ASB policy to:

• explain how it will respond to reports of ASB where the ASB occurs, or is reported from, within a social housing complex and / or the alleged perpetrator is the tenant of a social housing landlord;
• provide a summary of its enforcement powers where it investigates ASB;
• provide a summary the role and membership of CMARAC meetings and how it intends those meetings to also help tackle ASB;
2. provide a briefing (in person and / or in writing) to all staff who regularly attend ASB case reviews and CMARAC meetings on behalf of the Council to emphasise key learning points from this complaint. In particular that it should aim to influence any discussion to ensure there is clarity about the nature of ASB reports, the steps taken to investigate those reports and why relevant agencies have not taken enforcement action.

70. The Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

71. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mx Y. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action that I considered would remedy the injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman