Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not deal properly with anti-social behaviour (ASB), causing avoidable distress and economic loss. The Council did not deal properly with reported ASB. Mr and Mrs X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. The complainants, whom I shall refer to as Mr and Mrs X, complains the Council did not deal properly with reports of anti-social behaviour between 2022 and 2025 because it required them to buy monitoring equipment to collect evidence and later rescinded a CPN without telling them.
2. Mr and Mrs X say they suffered avoidable distress and economic loss.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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

7. I have investigated that part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with ASB from October 2023.
8. I cannot investigate matters before October 2023 because would be a late complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate back to October 2023 because Mr and Mrs X did not know what happened then, until 2025 when they complained.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr and Mrs 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

Law, guidance and policies

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. The 2014 Act introduced a power for agencies involved in tackling ASB to issue a community protection notice (CPN).

Community protection notices

13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.

What happened?

16. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
17. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about music noise caused by a neighbour causing ASB throughout 2022. They recorded events in a nuisance diary log. The Council visited Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour.
18. Mr and Mrs X reported that the ASB was continuing. The Council visited Mr and Mrs X’s neighbour and issued a CPN warning letter in November 2022.
19. Mr and Mrs X reported that the ASB was continuing. In May 2023 the Council issued a full CPN.
20. Mr and Mrs X reported that the ASB was continuing. In September 2023 the Council emailed Mr and Mrs X saying it intended to progress with enforcement and would issue a fixed penalty notice (FPN).
21. In October 2023 the Council rescinded the CPN it had previously issued.
22. Mr X sent an email to the Council in April 2025, setting out concerns over how the Council had dealt with the reported ASB. The Council provided a service level response to Mr and Mrs X’s concerns. It accepted the CPN had been rescinded after being reviewed, that no FPN had been issued and that the reported ASB should have been handled by Worcester Regulatory Services (WRS).
23. In May 2025, Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. The Council partly upheld Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, acknowledging:
• a failure to inform them that the Community Protection Order relating to the neighbour had been rescinded in October 2023;
• the Council did not sign post them to West Mercia Police or WRS in order to report harassment and noise complaints; and
• the Council failed to offer a referral to victim support services at the outset; and
• the level of customer service offered to them fell below the standards expected and apologised for any stress caused.
24. The Council’s complaint response apologised, identified service improvements made and offered Mr and Mrs X a payment of £500.

Analysis

25. The Council has accepted in its initial response that the noise nuisance issues should have been dealt with by WRS in the first place. This is supported by the fact the Council’s stage 1 complaint response advised Mr and Mrs X to report any subsequent noise nuisance to WRS.
26. Emails from September 2023 show the Council’s senior lawyer had reviewed the evidence and believed it was evidentially sufficient for the Council to take enforcement action.
27. The Council told Mr and Mrs X that the Council, “has the discretion to withdraw a CPN when it is no longer considered appropriate or proportionate.”
28. The Council says it rescinded the CPN because it had failed to engage with all parties prior to issuing the CPN. In response to my enquiries the Council said it, “did not follow good practice in our approach prior to issuing the Community Protection Notice (CPN) because we were not sufficiently confident that officers engaged fully with the alleged perpetrator and with other immediate neighbours before formal enforcement action was taken. The good practice guidelines we apply are defined by the national charity, ASB Help, which recommends that CPNs are intended to address behaviour that has a wider detrimental impact on the community, rather than disputes between two individuals or neighbouring households. Early engagement and proportionate investigation are therefore important to determine whether the statutory threshold for a CPN is met. When senior officers reviewed the action taken, the absence of meaningful engagement and wider community assessment gave doubt that the use of a Community Protection Notice was appropriate or proportionate in this case.”
29. The Council has accepted that it did not tell Mr and Mrs X it had rescinded the CPN.
30. The Council informed Mr and Mrs X it would be taking enforcement action. Rescinding the CPN meant the Council were unable to do this. Mr and Mrs X were left in the mistaken belief that the Council were taking enforcement action against reported ASB, when it was not. This raised their expectations and left them uncertain why action was not being taken.
31. I agree with the Council that it did not deal with the ASB reported by Mr and Mrs X properly. This is fault by the Council. On the balance of probabilities, the Council’s failure to deal properly with ASB reported to it, and not to inform Mr and Mrs X that it had rescinded the CPN, meant Mr and Mrs X subsequently suffered avoidable distress because they experienced ASB which could have otherwise been the subject of enforcement action to limit or prevent it.

Action by the Council

32. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, including:
• Introducing a new case-management system in January 2025, which now tracks anti-social-behaviour reports end-to-end.
• Provided updated guidance on how and where to report ASB to WRS.
33. The Council has already apologised to Mr and Mrs X in its complaint responses.
34. The Council has offered to pay Mr and Mrs X £500 towards mediation services. Mr and Mrs X do not believe that mediation will offer a positive route forwards.

The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

35. Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. Taking into account the ASB reported by Mr and Mrs X and the Council’s offer to make a payment of £500 to Mr and Mrs X, this is an appropriate remedy level.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Mr and Mrs X £500 in respect of avoidable distress.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman