Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint about the Council’s decisions on allegations of anti-social behaviour. This is because we could not add anything meaningful to the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs B.
2. Mrs B complains the Council has not taken action to tackle anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. She says, as a result, the neighbour has been left to verbally abuse her and cause damage to her property.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislative background

Anti-social behaviour

7. 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.
8. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• 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.

9. 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.

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 (ASB). This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as 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. 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.
13. 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.

Mrs B’s complaint

14. For several years Mrs B has been reporting to the Council that she is the victim of targeted anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour. This includes noise nuisance, verbal abuse and damage to her property.
15. The Council has investigated Mrs B’s reports during that time, including making visits to the site, reviewing video and audio recordings she has submitted, and liaising with the police, with an ASB case review having been completed in 2022.
16. Between January and March 2025, Mrs B completed the Council’s complaints process. In response to her complaints, the Council set out what it had done to investigate the alleged ASB, but explained it was not satisfied there was any compelling evidence to support Mrs B’s allegations. Mrs B then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in April.

Back to top

Analysis

17. The Ombudsman’s role to review the way councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or failed to act with due promptness. We call this ‘administrative fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider what impact it had and whether the council should take steps to address this.
18. But we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decisions, and we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf. If we find a council has acted without fault, therefore, we cannot criticise it, even if someone disagrees strongly with its decisions.
19. Mrs B’s complaint is, in essence, that the Council has not taken any enforcement action against her neighbour, on the basis of the evidence she has submitted to support her allegations about him. However, while this is true, it is clearly not because of any administrative failure by the Council – rather, it is because the Council has not found the evidence persuasive.
20. In some cases the Council says this is because the audio and video recordings do not actually show what Mrs B has reported; in many other, it is because the incidents reported by Mrs B simply do not amount to ASB. It has explained this clearly several times to Mrs B, and in correspondence with us.
21. In one instance Mrs B reported a serious incident of alleged criminal damage to her property. The Council explained this was a matter for the police and not something it could investigate itself. I consider this was an appropriate response.
22. I do not seek to dismiss Mrs B’s distress at her ongoing dispute with the neighbour. However, the Council has made decisions it is entitled to make, and we cannot substitute its judgement with our own, no matter how Mrs B feels about the situation. This being so, I do not consider there is anything meaningful to be gained by continuing my investigation of this complaint.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have discontinued my investigation of this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman