Summary: Miss X and Mr X complained the Council did not properly deal with Miss X’s reports of anti-social behaviour by her neighbours and treated her unfairly. We have not found fault in the way the Council handled those reports or in the later ASB Case Review process. We did not investigate the earlier warnings issued to Miss X, her complaints about a Council officer, or her complaint that the Council interfered with related civil litigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X and Mr X complain the Council treated them unfairly in its handling of Miss X’s reports about neighbour anti-social behaviour. They say it failed to follow its procedures, did not properly acknowledge or investigate the reports, ignored evidence Miss X provided, and favoured the neighbours. They also say the Council interfered with related civil litigation and that personal connections influenced the way it dealt with the case. They say this caused distress, affected Miss X’s health, and prevented them from peacefully enjoying their home.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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)

Back to top

What I have not investigated

5. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to issue anti-social behaviour warnings to Miss X in August and December 2023. This is because Miss X did not complain to us about those warnings until July 2025, so this part of the complaint is late. I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now. I also do not consider the warnings themselves caused sufficient personal injustice to justify investigation.
6. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaints about the conduct of Council Officer A. This is because we previously considered that issue, and I have not seen evidence of a significant enough personal injustice from any further alleged failure by the Council to revisit those complaints to justify a new investigation. The Council’s records also show Officer A was no longer allocated to the case.
7. I have not investigated the complaint that the Council obstructed or interfered with related civil litigation. This is because I have not seen evidence the Council was involved in the litigation itself, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council on this point to justify investigation. The Council said Officer A had no involvement in legal action involving the neighbours and invited supporting evidence if Miss X wished to pursue that allegation further.
8. I have also not investigated the criminal allegations Miss X raised about assault, criminal damage, and related behaviour by the neighbours. This is because such matters fall to the police, not to the Council, and are outside the remit of this investigation into the Council’s administrative actions.
9. Miss X also suggested personal connections or a conflict of interest affected the way the Council dealt with her case. I have not investigated that as a separate complaint issue. I have focused my investigation on the Council’s handling of Miss X’s reports of anti-social behaviour and the later ASB Case Review. While that later multi-agency review does not prove there was no bias at an earlier stage, it does show Miss X’s reports were not left solely with the officer she distrusted, or solely within one part of the Council. The matter was reconsidered more widely and the review reached the view there was insufficient independent evidence for further action. In those circumstances, I do not consider a separate investigation into alleged bias or conflict of interest would be likely to achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and Mr X, and by the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss X and Mr X were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Statutory nuisances

12. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
13. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include:
• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from premises;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and
• accumulation of deposits on premises.
14. 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.
15. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
16. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
17. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
18. 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.

Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

19. A member of the public can also take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.
20. This process does not involve the council, but it is good practice for councils to tell complainants about their right to take private action.

Anti-social behaviour

21. 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;
• 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.
22. 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)

23. The 2014 Act introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’. 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.

Back to top

What happened

24. Miss X has made repeated reports to the Council about the behaviour of her neighbours over a prolonged period. She said this included noise, harassment, intimidation, trespass, and other anti-social behaviour. She was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and said it had not properly dealt with her reports.
25. The Council’s Community Safety team told Miss X in June 2024 that reports about noise and light nuisance should be dealt with by its Public Protection team, while other alleged anti-social behaviour could be reported to Community Safety and the police. The Council said it would keep a written record of future anti-social behaviour reports but would only be able to investigate and respond where there was independent evidence to support the allegation.
26. The records show Miss X continued to send the Council reports and Ring doorbell footage. In October 2024, after reviewing a number of emails and recordings, the Community Safety Manager identified two incidents she considered required further enquiry. This included a visitor making a rude gesture towards Miss X’s camera and a comment made while pointing towards Miss X’s property. The Council said it would visit the neighbour and update Miss X.
27. Later that month, the Council told Miss X an officer had visited and spoken to the neighbour about those incidents. It said the neighbour had been given words of advice about behaviour which could be anti-social, antagonistic or retaliatory, and that the Council expected there to be no further behaviour of that nature.
28. At the same time, the Public Protection team considered Miss X’s separate reports about light and later dog barking. Its records show officers visited in July, August and October 2024 to assess the light and did not find a statutory nuisance. When Miss X later reported dog barking, the Council said Ring footage from outside her home was not enough on its own to establish a statutory noise nuisance within the property, and asked her to complete diary sheets. The records also show the Council offered noise monitoring equipment again in August 2025, but Miss X did not take up that offer.
29. In February 2025, the Community Safety Manager told Miss X she had reviewed a sample of the Ring footage and could not identify evidence of anti-social behaviour by the neighbours. She said noise nuisance was outside her team’s remit and should be pursued with Environmental Health. The Council’s later case review report says Community Safety reviewed many recordings over a prolonged period and did not find evidence of anti-social behaviour by the neighbour, apart from one minor incident which had already been addressed with words of advice.
30. Environmental Health records show Miss X continued to send frequent reports and Ring footage between January and March 2025 and beyond. The Council maintained the footage did not demonstrate a statutory nuisance because it was recorded outside the property and was not supported by evidence showing the impact inside Miss X’s home. In March 2025, Environmental Health wrote to the neighbour about further complaints and received a response disputing them. Environmental Health later contributed its information to the ASB Case Review.
31. In July 2025, Miss X asked for an ASB Case Review. The Council’s timeline shows it received the request in mid-July 2025. An initial telephone meeting with Miss X took place in mid-August 2025, and the Council then contacted the relevant agencies for information to decide whether the threshold for a review was met. In late-August 2025, the Council told Miss X the threshold had been met and that a review would take place.
32. The ASB Case Review took place in early October 2025. The review considered information from Community Safety, Environmental Health and the police. The Council’s outcome letter to Miss X said the agencies had invested considerable time and resources into her complaints, but the absence of independent evidence remained a critical gap. It said that without verifiable information, no further action plan could properly be formed. The Council gave Miss X the outcome, offered a meeting to discuss it, and explained how she could ask for an appeal through the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Analysis

The Council’s handling of Miss X’s reports of anti-social behaviour

33. Councils have powers to respond to anti-social behaviour, but they are entitled to decide what action is appropriate based on the evidence available. They are also entitled to distinguish between different types of complaint and direct them to the appropriate service. So I have considered whether the Council responded to Miss X’s reports, considered the information she provided, and reached decisions it was entitled to make.
34. The evidence shows the Council did engage with Miss X’s reports over a prolonged period. In June 2024, the Community Safety Manager explained that reports about noise and light nuisance fell to Public Protection, while other allegations of anti-social behaviour could be considered by Community Safety and the police. The Council also explained that it would keep a record of future reports, but that it would need evidence to support allegations before it could take formal action.
35. The records also show the Council did not simply ignore the information Miss X sent. In October 2024, after reviewing Miss X’s emails and recordings, the Community Safety Manager identified three incidents she considered required further enquiry. The Council visited the neighbour and gave words of advice about behaviour which could be anti-social, antagonistic or retaliatory. This shows the Council was willing to act where it considered the information justified intervention.
36. The Community Safety records show the Council reviewed a significant amount of material sent by Miss X over time, including many Ring recordings, but did not identify evidence of actionable anti-social behaviour by the neighbour beyond the minor incident already addressed. In February 2025, the Community Safety Manager told Miss X they had reviewed a sample of footage and could not identify evidence of anti-social behaviour. The later case review report records that both the original case officer and the Community Safety Manager reviewed very large quantities of footage and reached the same broad conclusion.
37. I have also considered the role of Environmental Health. Its records show repeated consideration of Miss X’s complaints about light and dog barking. Officers visited to assess the light nuisance, did not find a statutory nuisance, and later explained that Ring footage from outside the property could not by itself establish a statutory noise nuisance within the home. The Council asked for diary evidence and offered monitoring equipment more than once.
38. Miss X clearly disagrees with the Council’s view of the evidence and says it should have done more. But disagreement with the Council’s conclusions is not, by itself, evidence of fault. On the information I have seen, the Council considered the reports, distinguished between matters within different teams’ remits, reviewed the evidence Miss X provided, and took some action where it considered that appropriate. I have not seen evidence the Council failed to consider Miss X’s reports or simply refused to deal with them.
39. I recognise the Council’s records refer to the very high volume of Miss X’s contact and say this created practical difficulties in reviewing all material. But I do not consider that amounts to fault on its own. The Council was entitled to manage contact in a proportionate way, especially where it explained which service should receive which type of report and what evidence would assist further action.
40. For these reasons, I do not find fault in the Council’s general handling of Miss X’s reports of anti-social behaviour.

The ASB Case Review

41. The Council’s records show Miss X requested an ASB Case Review in July 2025. An initial call took place in August 2025, the relevant agencies were contacted for information, and the Council then decided the threshold for a review had been met. A review panel was convened and considered information from Community Safety, Environmental Health and the police.
42. The outcome letter records that the panel received detailed submissions from those agencies, recognised the time and resources already invested, and concluded the absence of independent evidence remained a critical gap. It said all reasonable lines of enquiry had been exhausted and that, without verifiable information, no credible action plan could be formed. The Council then wrote to Miss X with the outcome, offered support information, and explained how she could seek an appeal.
43. The purpose of the review was to consider whether further action could properly be taken in response to the reports made. On the evidence I have seen, the Council carried out that process, involved the relevant agencies, reached a reasoned outcome, and told Miss X how she could challenge it further. I have therefore not found fault in the way the Council carried out the ASB Case Review.

Back to top

Decision

44. I have not found fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s reports of anti-social behaviour or in the later ASB Case Review process. I did not investigate the earlier warnings issued to Miss X, her complaints about a Council officer, or her complaint that the Council interfered with related civil litigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman