Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council handled his reports of noise and anti-social behaviour. We found the Council at fault for how it dealt with Mr X’s case, its complaints handling, and flaws in its anti-social behaviour case review policy. The Council’s actions caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, carry out a review of Mr X’s case and make a payment to recognise his distress. The Council will also make changes to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his evidence when investigating his noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB) complaint and did not respond to all his messages. He also complained it failed to act after it witnessed ASB. He said the Council’s actions have caused him and his family loss of amenity and affected his mental health.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(1), as amended)

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 opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour

8. 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. For example, they may approach a complaint as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution and/or using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Community protection notices

9. Councils and the police can issue community protection notices (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, require 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.

The anti-social behaviour case review (formerly known as the Community Trigger)

10. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which used to be called the ‘Community Trigger’.
11. 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.
12. The guidance says councils should also consider the persistence of the anti-social behaviour, the harm caused by the anti-social behaviour and the adequacy of the response to the anti-social behaviour in deciding whether the threshold for review has been met.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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

16. The following will give an overview of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
17. In April 2024 Mr X complained to the Council about noise and ASB from another person, who I will call D.
18. Between April 2024 and July 2024 the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns by reviewing his evidence, carrying out site visits and speaking with D.
19. In July 2024 the Council decided to issue a Community Protection Warning (CPW) to D, because of the noise and ASB. The CPW stated what steps D needed to follow to prevent the case being escalated. The Council then witnessed D breaching the CPW and so in August 2024 it escalated the case and issued a Community Protection Notice (CPN) to D. The CPN also stated what steps D had to take to avoid further action against them, such as a fixed penalty notice or prosecution.
20. In August 2024 Mr X complained to the Council. He said it had ignored his evidence D breached the CPN, failed to act, and had not responded to his messages.
21. The Council’s response to Mr X stated it had considered all his reports, but it accepted it could have improved how it responded to him. It said it would carry out an internal review of how Council officers respond to people who report, or provide updates on, ASB concerns. The Council also explained to him that if D breached the CPN, the Council could issue a fixed penalty notice or prosecute D.
22. The Council’s notes show that in August 2024 the Environmental Health team carried out a site visit and witnessed D breaching the CPN. The Council and D agreed actions that D could take to reduce the noise. However, the Council witnessed D breaching the CPN again in September 2024 and then wrote to D to ask them to follow the instructions stated on the CPN.
23. Between October and December 2024 the Council carried out multiple site visits but did not witness any breaches of the CPN. The Council told Mr X it could not take any further action, because it had not witnessed D breaching the CPN.
24. In November 2024 Mr X complained to the Council again. He said the ASB was still happening, but the Council had failed to enforce the CPN, despite him sending it evidence of the breaches.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It explained to Mr X that he cannot use its complaint process (or the Ombudsman’s) to challenge or overturn a decision made by a professional officer, so it would not look at the officer’s decision in his case; it would only consider whether the Council had followed correct procedure when handling his case. It told him it did not find fault in how it had looked into his concerns or handled his ASB case. It said his case was still open and it would still monitor his concerns.
26. The Council offered Mr X mediation with D, which it told us he rejected.
27. In February 2025 Mr X complained to us. He said the Council’s investigation was flawed and it had ignored his evidence.

Analysis

ASB investigation and communication with Mr X

28. The Council’s case notes show the Council carried out multiple site visits, reviewed evidence Mr X sent it, and did not delay issuing a CPW and then a CPN.
29. The Council told us it responded to all of Mr X’s concerns where it was necessary. It said it did not respond to messages that it felt did not need a response, such as updates with no new information.
30. The Council said it did not record every single message from Mr X on its case notes, because this would not be practical. Therefore, I have not seen evidence of every message Mr X sent to the Council.
31. On balance, I am satisfied the Council properly considered Mr X’s reports and evidence, therefore there is no fault by the Council on this point.
32. The Council told Mr X it accepted it could have responded to his concerns in a better way. It said it would carry out an internal review of how it replies to reports of noise and ASB.
33. In response to our enquiries, the Council told us this review had shown there was no further action for it to take. It said senior staff issued verbal advice to staff on handling relevant information.
34. The Council’s internal review of communication and the verbal reminder to staff are suitable actions to address any issues with its communication. Therefore, we will not make any recommendations on this point, but we will monitor the effectiveness of the Council’s actions through our casework.

CPN enforcement

35. In response to Mr X’s reports of the ASB continuing, the Council carried out multiple site visits.
36. The Council’s case notes show it witnessed D breaching the CPN in August 2024 and, after discussing with D, agreed actions for D to take to reduce any noise. The Council considered this action would be effective in reducing the impact on Mr X.
37. In September 2024, the Council witnessed D breaching the CPN again. It then wrote to D and asked them to comply with the CPN.
38. Mr X then continued to complain to the Council about D breaching the CPN from September 2024 onwards. The Council’s case notes show it carried out further site visits but did not witness D breaching the CPN on any more occasions.
39. In a case such as this, it is not for the Ombudsman to make our own decision whether a person is experiencing actionable noise nuisance or ASB, or precisely what powers the Council should use to enforce against it. Regardless of our findings, these remain decisions for the Council to make.
40. After witnessing the CPN breaches in August the Council accepted D’s actions to minimise the effect of the noise from his property on Mr X. However, the Council’s case notes do not show how it decided writing to D after it witnessed them breaching the CPN again in September 2024 was sufficient action to take to resolve the noise issue.
41. The Council’s failure to explain to Mr X how it decided what actions to take after finding D breached the CPN is fault.
42. This fault caused injustice to Mr X because it caused him uncertainty as he was confused about the Council’s actions and did not understand why it had not taken enforcement action against D. The injustice caused by the Council’s failure to communicate with Mr X did not last long as during the site visits carried out from October 2024 the Council did not witness D breaching the CPN again.

Anti-social behaviour case review

43. The ASB statutory guidance says the number of reports needed to meet the threshold to qualify for an ASB case review should be, at a maximum, three reports of ASB within six months.
44. The Council’s policy on its website (which still refers to the ASB case review as the “Community Trigger”) states the Council will accept a request for a review if there have been three or more reports in the last six months and the investigation into the case is complete.
45. However, the statutory guidance states: “Where a person makes an application for the ASB Case Review and has made at least the set number of qualifying complaints, the threshold for a review is met and the relevant bodies have a duty to undertake the ASB Case Review. This can be on an open or closed case.”
46. Therefore, this is a flaw in the Council’s policy. It means if the Council considers someone’s case to still be under investigation that person can’t ask for an ASB case review, even if they have made enough reports. This does not align with the statutory guidance which says the reports can be made on open or closed cases.
47. This flaw in the policy caused injustice to Mr X. Although he may have made enough reports to meet the threshold for a review, the Council did not refer him to ask for an ASB case review because his case was still under investigation. This caused a loss of opportunity for Mr X, because he did not know he could ask for a review.
48. In response to our draft decision, the Council raised concerns the statutory guidance does not make it clear what counts as a qualifying report and that it would not be practical for councils to count every contact from individuals as a separate qualifying report, when some of these reports may just be updates on the same incidents, instead of new complaints or concerns. It explained this would significantly increase the number of cases qualifying for a review and put pressure on its resources.
49. However, the Council’s case notes do not show how it considered Mr X’s reports and decided if they represented a new complaint or a material change in his circumstances and therefore this is fault. If it had considered this and decided they were not qualifying reports and therefore his case had not met the threshold for a review and explained its reasons, this likely would not have been fault by the Council.
50. As explained in paragraph three, where we can see a council took account of the relevant guidance and information in making its decision, followed the correct process to make its decision and it did not fetter its discretion, we would not find fault.

Complaint handling

51. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council told him that its, and the Ombudsman’s, complaint process cannot challenge or overturn a decision made by a professional officer.
52. The Council is right to say the Ombudsman does not take a second look at an organisation’s decision to determine if the decision was correct or say it should have reached a different outcome. However, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it did not follow those processes correctly, we may recommend the organisation retake or review its decision, following the correct process.
53. Our guidance Principles of Good Administrative Practice states the standards we expect when we investigate complaints about councils. It says councils should be open and accountable by giving reasons for decisions and should operate an effective complaints procedure, which includes offering a fair and appropriate remedy when a complaint is upheld.
54. The Council was at fault to tell Mr X it would not consider the decision made by its officer as part of its complaints process. Not reviewing the process leading to the decisions made by officers denies complainants the opportunity for a fair and appropriate remedy for any injustice caused by a decision not taken correctly. An appropriate remedy for a decision not taken correctly could be for the decision to be retaken or reviewed.
55. This fault caused Mr X injustice because it further added to his frustration. Mr X was not given an opportunity to challenge the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Action

56. Within one month of our decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the failings identified during this investigation. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance for making an effective apology;
2. contact Mr X and other relevant bodies to make arrangements to carry out an ASB case review, in accordance with the statutory guidance; and
3. pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration caused to him by the Council’s failure to: explain its decision not to take enforcement action, tell him about his right to ask for an ASB case review, and fault in its complaint handling.
57. Within three months of our decision, the Council will:
1. update its webpage and policy titled “The Community Trigger” to refer to it as an “anti-social behaviour case review”;
2. update its ASB case review policy to clarify that it will consider reports of ASB, whether the case is still open or closed, when deciding if a case meets the threshold for review; and
3. through training or a staff briefing, ensure relevant staff are aware that when an individual complains about a decision taken by the Council, the complaint investigator should consider whether there were flaws in the decision-making process. If it is found a decision is flawed, it may be appropriate to recommend the decision is retaken or reviewed.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman