Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his Anti-Social Behaviour case review. We find the Council at fault for failing to involve Mr X in the review and for failing to keep him updated, causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice, and act to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not followed the right process in relation to an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) case review he opened in October 2023. Mr X says this has caused him and his family real stress and means the ASB has continued.

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 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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. Mr X has said the situation is ongoing and he remains dissatisfied with the Council’s actions, but if he wants us to investigate any events that have taken place since September 2024, he will first need to raise this with the Council and give it an opportunity to respond.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X 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

Relevant law and policy

8. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave councils a general duty to take action to tackle ASB, which is defined as conduct:
• that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
• is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
• is capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the ASB case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. Mr X had been raising issues with the Council, the police, and a housing association about his neighbours for several years. In October 2023 Mr X submitted an ASB case review request to the police and this was forwarded to the Council.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain it had received this and would now need to consider if it met the threshold for an ASB case review. The Council explained the ASB case review process could take some time to progress but said it would keep Mr X updated.
17. The Council discussed Mr X’s case at the next meeting of the Partnership Action Group. The Partnership Action Group is a group made up of members of the community safety partnership, including the police and the housing association Mr X had raised complaints with.
18. The Council agreed the ASB case review request met the threshold and asked the partner agencies to share any contact they had received from Mr X relating to ASB in the area, so it could consider this.
19. The housing provider told the Council it was currently working with the police to address the issues Mr X had raised.
20. In December 2023 Mr X contacted the Council to request an update. The Council explained it could not give an outcome at that point in time and a resolution was likely to be difficult to reach given that both parties involved were neighbours.
21. At that time the housing association updated the Council to let it know they were still working with the police towards a resolution.
22. Mr X’s case was discussed monthly at the Partnership Action Group meetings, where the police and the housing association updated the Council on what had been happening and what was due to happen next. At the April 2024 meeting, the housing association explained the ASB had reduced as Mr X and his neighbour had agreed to enter mediation. By the June 2023 meeting, the partner agencies said they were now receiving very few reports of ASB.
23. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2023 to say he was unhappy with the progress of his ASB case review. He said this was causing real distress for him and his family and asked the Council to consider this as a formal complaint.
24. The Council explained it was under the impression from the partnership agencies that the situation had improved but agreed to speak to them again for an update. The Council explained ASB case reviews can take a long time to resolve but offered to meet face-to-face with Mr X and the partner agencies who were involved to discuss action to date and potential future opportunities for resolution.
25. Mr X said the Council had failed to follow the guidance set out in the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 and reiterated his request for this to be considered as a formal complaint.
26. The Council contacted the partner agencies to explain Mr X remained unhappy and to ask for an update. The Council was told Mr X still made reports periodically but they were keeping him updated on the action they were taking.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s to explain it did not feel it had failed in its duties as a live ASB case review was in place and it was continuing to monitor this. The Council explained it was engaged with partner agencies, and it was assured they had been updating Mr X throughout the process. The Council explained ASB case reviews take time to resolve. The Council acknowledged the frequency of updates from it may not have been what Mr X expected but explained there had not been much progress to update him on.
28. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider his complaint. Mr X said he had not been kept informed of the progress of his ASB case review request or timescales for dealing with this. Mr X said the communication had been poor and he had seen no evidence of any progress having been made. Mr X said that as a result, the ASB had been allowed to continue.
29. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint, it acknowledged it had relied on its partner agencies to update Mr X throughout the process and agreed updates may not have been as frequent as Mr X would have expected. The Council agreed it could have communicated with Mr X more effectively and proactively and apologised for this but repeated its offer to meet face to face with Mr X and the relevant partner agencies. The Council explained reports of ASB recently had been low, and urged Mr X to report whenever he experienced issues to assist the ASB case review.
30. The Council has said that Mr X’s case is still open as he has expressed ongoing concerns. However, it has said it established both partner agencies involved had taken and were taking appropriate action in relation to the incidents Mr X had reported. The Council has said Mr X has not yet taken it up on its offer to meet face to face with him and the relevant partner agencies.

Analysis

31. Our role is not to consider Mr X’s ASB case review and make our own conclusions on this. Rather, we consider whether the Council followed the right process when considering it. If it has done, then we cannot find it at fault.
32. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s ASB case review request promptly once it received it and let him know how it would consider this. The Council then engaged with the relevant partner agencies to assess whether Mr X’s request met the threshold and establish what actions had been taken and were still being taken to address the reported ASB. The Council satisfied itself its partner agencies were taking steps towards a resolution and continued to monitor the situation. I do not find fault with the process it followed here.
33. I appreciate Mr X’s frustration at the length of time this has taken to date. While we would expect councils to handle ASB case reviews in a timely manner, there is no set deadline by which these need to be resolved. The information I have seen suggests that, while the Council has not resolved Mr X’s ASB case review, it has satisfied itself progress has been made towards a resolution. I do not find it at fault here.
34. However, we would expect to see the Council has included Mr X in the review and kept him informed of the progress of this. Based on the information available to me, the Council has not done this. The Council has relied on partner agencies to keep Mr X updated and has not provided regular updates on how it has satisfied itself action is being taken to move towards a resolution. This is poor practice and amounts to fault which has caused real uncertainty for Mr X across the timeline I have considered, which is injustice. The Council has offered to meet with Mr X and the relevant partner agencies to discuss what has happened to date and what the forward plan is. I find this goes some way towards remedying the injustice to Mr X but I find the Council ought to take further action.

Back to top

Action

35. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified above, the Council should take the following actions within one month of the date of this decision:
• Provide Mr X with a written apology for the failure to include him in the process of the ASB case review and the failure to keep him updated. 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 of £100 to recognise the uncertainty caused to Mr X by the identified faults.
• Repeat its offer to meet face to face with Mr X and the relevant partner agencies to discuss what has happened to date and the forward plan. If Mr X does not take up this invitation, the Council should write to him setting out what action has been taken so far, and what the next planned actions are.
• Remind staff dealing with ASB case reviews of the importance of keeping service users updated regularly, even when little progress has been made.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find the Council at fault for failing to involve Mr X in its consideration of his ASB case review and for failing to keep him updated, causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice, and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman