Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly investigate anti-social behaviour or carry out an anti-social behaviour case review. We found fault which caused Mrs D distress. To remedy this the Council has agreed to apologise and take action on the case as set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complains the Council has failed to:
• properly investigate her reports of anti-social behaviour by her neighbours.
• carry out a case review.
• deal with persistent and vexatious complaints made against her by neighbours, including a false accusation that she had reported her neighbours for mistreating their dogs.
2. This has caused her significant distress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
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 spoke to Mrs D about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
7. Mrs D 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

Relevant law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour

8. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave councils a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB), which is defined as conduct:
• That has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
• Capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
• Capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. Dudley’s ASB policy says some behaviour, such as children playing, everyday noises and minor disputes or actions the Council cannot reasonably control, such as stares and dirty looks, are not considered to be ASB.
10. Councils have various powers to deal with ASB and councils and the police can issue community protection notices (CPN) to individuals. These require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. Councils will usually send a warning letter before issuing a CPN. Failure to comply with a CPN is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine. Councils may also suggest mediation and issue “good neighbour agreements” which are voluntary agreements which clarify acceptable behaviour and highlight the consequences of unacceptable behaviour.
11. If a person reports alleged ASB, the Council’s policy says it will contact the person reporting the incident and investigate where necessary. The Council will close the case when (amongst other things):
• It has reached an agreed solution and successfully resolved the incident.
• It has completed an investigation into the case and exhausted all viable solutions.
• It has offered mediation but this has been declined by the complainant.

ASB case reviews

12. The Act introduced the ASB case review (previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’). A review brings together relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) to consider how the ASB has been dealt with. The participants 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.
13. ASB case reviews will only take place if the request meets a locally agreed threshold. In Dudley a person can request a case review if:
• Three or more separate incidents of ASB, relating to the same problem within the past six months have been reported to the Council/Police/Landlord and no action has been taken, or the action that has been taken is not proportionate to the nature of the incident(s).
• The complainant has reported one incident or crime motivated by hate (due to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity) in the last six months and no action has been taken, or the action that has been taken is not proportionate to the nature of the incident(s).
• At least five people have made reports about the same problem in the past six months to the Council/Police/Landlord and no action has been taken, or the action that has been taken is not proportionate to the nature of the incident(s).
14. A person can ask the Council to review its decision that their request for an ASB case review has not met the threshold.

What happened

15. I have summarised the key events, this is not meant to detail everything that happened.
16. There have been ongoing incidents between Mrs D and her neighbours. Mrs D says her neighbours and their children are verbally abusive towards her and continually harass her.
17. In 2023 a complaint was made about smoke from Mrs D’s garden and a safeguarding alert raised about Mrs D’s children. The Council found no safeguarding concerns and no nuisance from the fire. Mrs D says she has also been wrongly accused of reporting mistreatment of the neighbour’s dogs.
18. In March 2024 a neighbour physically assaulted Mrs D. This was reported to the police.
19. Mrs D reported ASB by her neighbours to the Council in April 2024. She said as well as the assault, the neighbours had made vexatious complaints against her, verbally abused and harassed her, and one had painted their side of her fence without her consent.
20. The Council sent Mrs D diary sheets and arranged to visit her. Mrs D submitted the diary sheets on 23 April. They recorded incidents of verbal abuse, shouting and an incident of a neighbour damaging Mrs D’s plants.
21. The Council liaised with the police and a joint visit was made to Mrs D and to the neighbours in May 2024. Verbal warnings were issued to all parties. The Council advised Mrs D to refrain from interacting with the neighbours and from sitting on a shared boundary wall. Mrs D showed the Council and police her CCTV footage of the assault. She asked them to view other footage she had of the verbal abuse. The Council asked Mrs D to upload the other footage to a USB stick and to provide this to the police.
22. Mrs D sent further diary sheets to the Council showing the verbal abuse that had happened prior to the visit. She asked how she could submit her footage. The Council wrote to Mrs D on 4 June. It said it would look into her allegations and reiterated that Mrs D should refrain from contacting the neighbours.
23. On 14 June, the Council’s ASB officer called Mrs D to discuss the case. Mrs D described further recent incidents of verbal abuse but had no recordings of them. She had given the USB stick to the police. The officer said he had seen no evidence of ASB and intended to close the case once he had heard from the police.
24. The Council asked a street officer to visit daily for a week but I have seen no evidence this was carried out. Nor have I seen evidence the Council heard back from the police.
25. The ASB officer called Mrs D on 27 June and suggested mediation but Mrs D declined as she had had no apology from the neighbours. The officer said there was no evidence of ongoing ASB.
26. The Council wrote to Mrs D on 1 July closing the case as it had insufficient evidence of ASB.
27. On 8 July the police issued CPN warning letters to all parties.
28. Mrs D complained on 11 August 2024. The Council did not uphold her complaint in its response of 12 September. It said it had reviewed all available evidence but there was not enough to show there had been ASB.
29. Mrs D remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate her complaint. Her letter requests an ASB case review.
30. The Council’s final complaint response of 7 October said that Mrs D had been asked to submit the CCTV footage to the police and the Council had only visited Mrs D to support the police as the matter was for them.

My findings

31. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if there has been ASB, that is the Council’s role. My role is to consider how the Council reached its view. If there was no fault in the way it made its decision, I cannot challenge it.
32. Mrs D submitted diary sheets to the Council which record incidents of verbal abuse towards her by her neighbours. The Council decided on 1 July that it had insufficient evidence of ASB but its letter did not explain why the verbal abuse evidenced in the diary sheets did not constitute ASB.
33. Nor have I seen evidence the Council heard back from the police about what Mrs D’s CCTV footage showed, so I have no evidence the Council considered the footage. I note that having reviewed the footage the police then issued CPN warning letters.
34. I find the Council has failed to show that it properly considered Mrs D’s evidence or properly explained why the evidence she provided did not amount to ASB. This is fault causing her distress and uncertainty about whether other action could have been taken.
35. Mrs D’s stage two complaint requests an ASB case review but I have seen no evidence the Council considered whether this request met the threshold in its ASB policy. Nor did it reply to Mrs D about this, nor give her an opportunity to ask for a review of any decision that her request did not meet the threshold.
36. Councils may reject a case review request having properly considered it on the grounds it does not meet the local threshold, but they should not respond to a request by issuing a complaint response. So I find this is fault causing Mrs D uncertainty about whether she had a valid request.
37. There were some complaints made against Mrs D in 2023 but I have seen no evidence of any complaints made in 2024. So there is no evidence that the Council failed to properly deal with any vexatious complaints.
38. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. Our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might.

Back to top

Action

39. Within six weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Re-consider the diary sheets Mrs D submitted in April and May 2024.
2. Consider any comments it received from the police about the CCTV footage from 13 May to 8 July 2024.
3. Determine whether it had evidence of ASB. If the behaviour reported does not constitute ASB its letter should explain why.
4. Consider Mrs D’s request for an ASB case review and determine if it meets the Council’s threshold.
5. Write to Mrs D with an apology and the outcome of its considerations.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman