Summary: Miss Y complained about the Council’s response to her reports of a neighbour’s excessive noise and anti-social behaviour. We have found fault, causing injustice, in the Council’s failure to: properly review and consider appropriate action in response to the reports of the neighbour’s ongoing noise and anti-social behaviour; communicate with Miss Y about her case and with its complaint handling failures. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by: apologising; making a payment to reflect the distress caused; holding an anti-social behaviour case review and providing an action plan for its investigation; and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s response to her reports of anti-social behaviour and excessive noise by a neighbour. She says the Council failed to properly:

• investigate her reports and take appropriate enforcement action;
• consider the impact of the neighbour’s continuing anti-social behaviour on her health and wellbeing; and
• communicate with her about the progress of its investigation and proposed actions.

2. Miss Y says, because of these failures, she has had to endure the neighbour’s continuing extreme anti-social behaviour. This is severely impacting her own mental health and wellbeing.

3. She wants the Council to take appropriate action to address the neighbour’s anti-social behaviour, communicate properly with her about this and provide her with support while this is ongoing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss Y 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

What should have happened

Anti-social behaviour

11. 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.
12. 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 an 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.

13. The 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.

Community protection notices

14. 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.
15. Councils must issue a written warning in advance of a CPN. The council should decide how long after the written warning to wait before serving a CPN. A person can appeal a CPN in the magistrates' court within 21 days of receiving it if they disagree with the council’s decision.
16. In some instances, antisocial behaviour may cause a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act. In such cases councils can serve both a CPN and an abatement notice on the perpetrator, if they consider it necessary.

The anti-social behaviour case review

17. 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’.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.

Statutory nuisances - noise

22. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
23. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

24. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence and use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
25. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Abatement notices

26. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
27. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

What happened

28. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
29. I have investigated what happened from early 2024. I have set out what happened before this as context for my findings.

Background

30. The Council’s Community Safety & Engagement Team (the team) investigate reports of noise, anti-social behaviour and other nuisances within the Council’s area.
31. In early 2023, Miss Y complained to the team about a neighbour’s anti-social behaviour and excessive noise. The team investigated her complaint and issued the neighbour with a Community Protection Notice (CPN).
32. The situation did not improve, and Miss Y continued to report the neighbour’s noise and anti-social behaviour.
33. In late 2023 the team decided the neighbour had breached the CPN and considered taking enforcement action regarding this breach.
34. Miss Y complained to the Council it had failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports of the neighbour’s noise and anti-social behaviour.
35. The Council replied to Miss Y’s complaint. It said the team was working with the Council’s legal and adult social care teams to find a positive solution and would keep her up to date with progress.

Early 2024: decision to enforce the CPN

36. The team decided to prosecute the neighbour for breaching the CPN and seek a criminal behaviour order.
37. Professionals working with the neighbour (including a team officer) held a multi-agency meeting. The meeting record confirms the team’s decision, following a meeting with lawyers, to prosecute the neighbour and seek a criminal behaviour order. It also says the team proposed to visit the neighbour to explain the implications of criminal proceedings.
38. The Council says the neighbour refused to engage with the team when it made a home visit. It wrote to the neighbour the same day advising it was seeking a criminal behaviour order.
39. The team told Miss Y it was prosecuting the neighbour for failing to comply with the CPN. It said she would be needed as a witness, and it would contact her about the court process.
40. The Council has told us the team held a prosecution file. This included witness statements about the neighbour’s behaviour, including Miss Y’s statement completed in early 2024, noise recordings and internal authorisations for prosecution action.

Spring 2024: the team’s further contact with Miss Y

41. Miss Y reported the neighbour’s ongoing anti-social behaviour to the team.
42. It told Miss Y it was meeting with the legal team and insisting the mental health team took action to move the neighbour. It apologised the process was taking so long and said this was because of legalities due to the neighbour’s condition.
43. Miss Y heard nothing further from the team after Spring 2024.

September 2024: Miss Y’s complaint to the Council

44. Miss Y complained about the team’s failure to communicate with her about the progress of her noise and anti-social behaviour complaint. The team had failed to reply to her emails. The noise was ongoing with the neighbour screaming at all hours of the day and night, banging on walls and keeping them up almost every night. The neighbour was also threatening and screaming at them outside the house.
45. The Council did not reply to Miss Y’s complaint. She chased it for a response in January 2025.

March 2025: Miss Y’s complaint to us

46. Miss Y did not receive any response from the Council, and she contacted us in March. We asked the Council whether it had replied to her complaint.
47. The team held a meeting about Miss Y’s case. The meeting record says it decided to convene a multi-agency meeting and speak to adult social care.

The Council’s response to Miss Y’s complaint

48. In its stage 1 response to Miss Y’s complaint the Council said:

• the team had tried to resolve the issues with the neighbour. But adult social care had advised the neighbour’s mental ill health was a factor and the appropriate avenue was support from adult social care and other agencies. It had advised her of the position and empathised with this and the distress it was causing; and
• it had not acted on her initial complaint because of a system error, which had now been rectified. It recognised this had added to her concerns and apologised for the inconvenience and stress caused.

49. The Council says it asked the team to log a case review and confirm with adult social care the actions it had taken following the previous discussions. But the team did not do this.
50. In its final response to Miss Y’s complaint in April 2025, the Council upheld her complaint and:

• apologised the team’s service had led to her making a complaint;
• confirmed no formal action had been taken against the neighbour following advice from its legal and adult social care teams; and
• apologised for the lack of communication. The officer in charge of her case had been away on extended leave with no access to their work laptop or email. Its system had not alerted the team manager to the complaint.

51. The Council also told Miss Y it would like to carry out a case review, re-open the case and discuss with her and other teams what could be done to support her with the issues she was dealing with.

Current position

52. The Council did not follow up on its offer to re-open the case and discuss the situation with Miss Y. She heard nothing further from the Council and in September 2025, she asked us to investigate her complaint.
53. In its response to our enquiries the Council told us it has not taken any action to progress its work on Miss Y’s case since April 2025 because of team staffing issues.
54. It has proposed carrying out an ASB case review now to look at how the team, adult social care and legal teams can support Miss Y going forward. 

My decision - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s response to Miss Y’s reports of anti-social behaviour

55. There has been a complete failure by the Council, from early 2024 to date, to properly review, consider and make decisions about appropriate action in response to Miss Y’s reports of her neighbour’s ongoing noise and anti-social behaviour. It has also failed to communicate properly with Miss Y during this period.
56. These include the Council’s failure to:
1. keep proper case notes and records of its further contact with other professionals about action to address the neighbour’s anti-social behaviour, or of its decisions about this after early 2024;
2. take any action to review the case. It told Miss Y in Spring 2024 it had a meeting with the legal team about the case but there is no record of this meeting, the outcome, or of any further review of the case;
3. communicate with Miss Y about what was happening with the case; and
4. monitor the progress of Miss Y’s case. There appears to have been no management oversight of the team’s current cases or any procedure for progressing them in the event of a case officer’s extended absence.
57. These failures are fault.

The Council’s handling of Miss Y’s complaint about the team’s response

58. There have also been failures in the Council’s handling of Miss Y’s complaint, including failing to:
1. respond to Miss Y’s complaint of September 2024. It did not reply to this until March 2025, a delay of seven months, and after she had contacted us about the complaint; and
2. take the action promised in its complaint response to re-open the case and review this with Miss Y.
59. These failures are fault.

Impact of these faults

60. Because of the Council’s failures, no action has been taken for over two years to review Miss Y’s case, consider or make decisions about appropriate steps to address her complaints about the neighbour’s noise and behaviour.
61. I am not able to say with certainty what difference it would have made had the Council properly reviewed the case and made decisions about appropriate action, or that this would have resolved the issues with the neighbour.
62. But Miss Y has had to continue to endure the impact of the neighbour’s ongoing behaviour during this period without any communication from the Council about what it was doing in response to her reports or to support her. This communication failure has caused her avoidable worry, uncertainty and distress about what action the Council was taking, at an already stressful and difficult time.
63. And its failures have also caused Miss Y additional distress from the uncertainty that, had the case been properly reviewed and appropriate actions considered, positive action to address the neighbour’s noise and behaviour issues may have been taken by now.

Back to top

Action

64. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Miss Y for: its failures from early 2024 to properly review, consider and make decisions about appropriate action in response to her neighbour’s ongoing noise and anti-social behaviour; its complaint handling failures; and the distress these caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Miss Y £500 to recognise the significant distress, worry and uncertainty caused by its failures for more than two years. This is a symbolic payment based on our guidance on remedies; and
3. allocate a suitably qualified officer within its Community Safety & Engagement Team to Miss Y’s case and:

• hold an ASB case review involving the relevant professionals working with the neighbour;
• create an action plan for the investigation of Miss Y’s reports of noise and anti-social behaviour;
• inform Miss Y about the outcome of the case review and the action plan, and provide her with the case officer and team manager’s contact details; and
• contact Miss Y to discuss how it can support her with the ongoing impact of the neighbour’s noise and behaviour.

65. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. report to us on the action it has taken to ensure the Community Safety & Engagement Team has the resources and staff needed to carry out its role and duties effectively;
2. complete a review of the Community Safety & Engagement Team’s casework system and make any changes needed to ensure:

• all contact, actions and decision-making are properly recorded on case files; and
• there is a process in place for proper management oversight and monitoring of casework.
3. complete a review of the Community Safety & Engagement Team’s guidance and procedures and make any changes needed to ensure there are clear timescales for case progression and updating those reporting issues; and
4. report to us on the action taken to rectify the system error in September 2024 and ensure all complaints to the Council are logged and processed.

66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman