Summary: We have completed our investigation into how the Council dealt with Mr X’s reports about a neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. This is because we do not find fault the Council’s decisions or actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take robust action about a neighbour’s antisocial behaviour and dog not being on a lead. He said the Council delayed acting on the antisocial behaviour despite his neighbour’s criminal charges. Mr X said the Council failed to use its antisocial behaviour powers, and failed to undertake staff training as directed by the Ombudsman.
2. Mr X said this meant he was unnecessarily exposed to threats and intimidation, and he felt trapped in his home.

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. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. In December 2024, the Ombudsman issued a decision on Mr X’s previous complaint about the same issue. That investigation covered the Council’s actions up to March 2024. We found fault, and the Council agreed to:
• consider whether to use any of its powers to address the verbal harassment Mr X reported and write to him explaining its decision; and,
• provide training or guidance to relevant staff on the Council's powers to tackle antisocial behaviour.
9. We were satisfied the Council completed these two agreed actions.
10. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman again about the same issue in July 2025.
11. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. I have considered Mr X’s reasons for not complaining to us earlier. I am not persuaded there are good reasons to exercise our discretion and look back any further than 12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to us.
12. For this reason, I have investigated from July 2024 (12 months before Mr X complained to us) to July 2025 (when he complained to us).
13. After Mr X complained to us, he also told us about new complaints to the Council about noise and dog faeces which he made after July 2025.
14. As I have said above, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. In this case, the Council is taking Mr X’s complaints through its complaints procedure. Also, what Mr X complains about is after the end of the scope of my investigation (see paragraph 12).
15. For these reasons, I consider it reasonable to allow the Council an opportunity to respond to Mr X’s new complaints. If, after this, Mr X still wants to complain to the Ombudsman, he can make a fresh complaint to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below.
17. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

18. Councils have a general duty to tackle antisocial behaviour. But antisocial behaviour can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
19. 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 Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

20. The 2014 Act introduced six powers for agencies involved in tackling antisocial behaviour. These are:

• the power to issue a community protection notice;
• the power to make a public spaces protection order;
• the power to close premises for a set length of time;
• a civil injunction (a court order which a council, or other agency, 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.

What happened

21. As I have set out above, in December 2024, the Ombudsman issued a decision on Mr X’s previous complaint about his reports of a neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. We found fault, and the Council agreed to our recommendations.
22. In February 2025, the Council spoke to Mr X. It agreed with Mr X it would get more information from police, take any appropriate action against the neighbour, try to improve communication between neighbours with mediation, and consider using Good Neighbour Agreements.
23. The Council also told Mr X it had drafted new policies about antisocial behaviour and hate crime. It explained the new processes it would use for all new reports of antisocial behaviour, that it would get monthly legal advice, and would put more emphasis on working with partner agencies.
24. In March, Mr X complained about neighbours’ dogs not being on leads and barking aggressively.
25. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X it had:
• sent letters to people it considered were causing a nuisance by allowing dogs to run loose;
• sent a general letter to all residents advising that dogs should be kept on leads, they were not allowed to roam loose, and they must be under control;
• organised a meeting for all residents with the Council’s mediation team to discuss what mediation meant and whether this was something that could work for everyone;
• drafted a Good Neighbour Agreement which it would discuss at the mediation meeting;
• draft new policies and was waiting for them to be agreed; and,
• organised ongoing and continuing staff training.
26. The Council accepted that some residents had not done what was asked of them in the letters. It said the next step was to consider legal action.
27. The police told the Council the neighbour was going to court to face criminal harassment charges.
28. In the Council’s second complaint response, it said it was working with the police about the neighbour. The Council told Mr X it was gathering evidence as part of its investigation, and would then consider what action it could take.
29. The Council interviewed the neighbour and said it might take legal action.
30. The Council then found out the neighbour was very ill. It decided to pause its legal action. Shortly after this, the neighbour died.

Analysis

Antisocial behaviour

31. Mr X complained the Council failed to take robust action about the neighbour’s antisocial behaviour and dog not being on a lead.
32. I do not agree. I have considered all the actions the Council took after July 2024. The Council told Mr X what it would do about his ongoing complaints about the neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. And the Council did what it said it would do.
33. When the Council’s initial approaches did not address the antisocial behaviour it considered what further, more robust action it could take. It followed through with this.
34. For this reason, I do not agree with Mr X that the Council failed to take robust action. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault.
35. Mr X complained there is another neighbour who walks a dog on a long lead. Mr X said the lead is too long.
36. The Council sent a letter to residents advising that dogs should be kept on leads and were not allowed to roam loose. This was appropriate and proportionate. I do not find the Council at fault for not taking action about a dog lead that Mr X believes is too long.

Delay taking action

37. Mr X complained the Council delayed acting on the neighbour’s antisocial behaviour despite their criminal charges. Mr X said the Council should not have waited to get information from the police. He said the Council should have progressed with its investigation as the Ombudsman directed.
38. I do not agree this was the outcome of the previous Ombudsman investigation. The Council agreed to consider whether to use any of its powers: we did not direct the Council to use its powers.
39. I find no fault with the Council getting information from police to support its investigation. This was an appropriate and proportionate course of action.
40. I have seen no evidence of delay. The Council is entitled to consider what powers to use to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Council began with informal action (letters, meetings, considering mediation). When this did not address the problem, it considered – and took – more robust action.
41. I am not persuaded the Council delayed taking action. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Failure to use antisocial behaviour powers

42. Mr X complained the Council failed to use its antisocial behaviour powers. He said the Ombudsman directed the Council to take action.
43. As I have said above, this is not accurate. The Council agreed to consider whether to use any of its powers to address the verbal harassment Mr X reported.
44. I am satisfied the Council considered its powers and decided the approach it would take to tackle the antisocial behaviour. I therefore do not find fault.

Previous Ombudsman investigation and agreed action

45. Mr X complained the Council failed to undertake staff training as directed by the Ombudsman.
46. As I have said above, our previous investigation found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to provide training or guidance to relevant staff on its powers to tackle antisocial behaviour. We are satisfied the Council completed this agreed action.
47. Mr X may disagree with the Ombudsman’s decision but that is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman