Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council considered his Anti-Social Behaviour case review requests. The Council was at fault for delay in dealing with Mr X’s requests, causing uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to recognise the injustice and act to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his Anti-social behaviour (ASB) case review requests. Mr X says he raised multiple ASB case review requests, but the Council responded to all of these outside of the relevant timescales. As a result, Mr X says he has been caused real stress and continued to experience serious ASB.

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 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint as set out above from January 2025 up until September 2025. Any mention below to events that took place either before January 2025 or after September 2025 are for reference only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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

Relevant law and policy

8. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave councils a general duty to take action to tackle ASB, which is defined as conduct:
• that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
• is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
• is capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the ASB case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. Mr X had been raising concerns about ASB in his local area with the police for several years, including possible use and dealing of illegal drugs, homophobic abuse, and attempted burglaries.
16. On 27 January 2025 Mr X submitted an ASB case review request to the Council. Mr X explained he had made three reports of ASB to the police since September 2024 but the situation remained unresolved.
17. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s ASB case review request and said it would update him once it had liaised with the police.
18. The Council then wrote to Mr X on 17 February to explain the police did not have any record of reports from Mr X and asked him to send evidence of this. Mr X provided the requested evidence the following day.
19. The Council discussed Mr X’s evidence with the police and they explained most of this had been recorded as local intelligence to help build up a picture of what was happening in the area rather than crime reports. In terms of the three incidents Mr X specified in his ASB case review request, the Council explained he had not provided sufficient evidence for them to pursue further action.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X in April 2025 with the outcome of his ASB case review request. The Council explained it had considered Mr X’s request but was satisfied the police had taken reasonable action by circulating his reports as local intelligence for teams who covered the area and it did not need to take further action. The Council apologised for the delay in providing an outcome and explained this was due to staff absence. The Council said if Mr X made further reports to the police that went unaddressed and met the criteria for an ASB case review, it could revisit this.
21. Mr X submitted a second ASB case review request on 3 June. Mr X explained he had made three separate reports of ASB to the police which had not been investigated or resolved.
22. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s request and contacted the police to ask for further information. The police said they intended to write to Mr X with their view of the reports and how best to report ASB going forward. The Council did not contact Mr X to update him on this or provide an outcome to his ASB case review request.
23. Mr X then submitted a third ASB case review request to the Council on 21 July. The Council acknowledged this and asked when a good time would be to discuss this.
24. On 11 September Mr X attended an ASB case review panel relating to his request to explain the background of the case and his experience with the reported ASB.
25. The Council wrote to Mr X on 22 September to explain the panel had found the relevant agencies were responding appropriately to the ASB Mr X had reported. The Council explained it had considered the legislative and enforcement tools available to it but said the panel was satisfied reports had been considered and responded to appropriately so no further action was warranted.
26. Responding to a complaint Mr X raised, the Council acknowledged it was responsible for delay in dealing with his ASB case review requests and apologised for this. However, the Council said it had followed the right process to reach its decisions. The Council explained it was reviewing its internal procedure for case management to avoid a repeat of the delays going forward.

Analysis

27. Our role is not to consider Mr X’s ASB case review and make our own conclusions on this. Rather, we consider whether the Council followed the right process when considering it. If it has done, then we cannot find it at fault.
28. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s ASB case review requests once it received them and let him know how it would consider these. The Council then engaged with the police as the relevant partner agency to assess whether Mr X’s requests met the threshold and establish what actions had been taken and were still being taken to address the reported ASB. The Council satisfied itself the police were taking adequate steps to address the ASB Mr X had reported and had properly considered the available interventions and enforcement tools. It then wrote to Mr X to explain this and why it would not be taking further action. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed here.
29. However, there were significant delays in the Council dealing with Mr X’s requests and providing him with an outcome. Each ASB case review request Mr X raised with the Council took several months to review and required him to chase it for a response. This amounts to fault and caused considerable uncertainty for Mr X, which is injustice. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for the injustice caused by the delay, but I find the Council also ought to make a symbolic payment. I say this because from the correspondence Mr X sent the Council and the volume of reports he had made to the police, it is clear this situation was causing considerable distress and the delay added to this.
30. The Council has said there were a number of reasons for the delay including staff absences, staff leaving the Council and capacity issues within the original team. While I appreciate many of these issues would have been beyond the Council’s control, not having a system in place to ensure complainants are kept updated and progress continues to be made amounts to fault and creates further uncertainty, which is injustice.

Back to top

Action

31. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified above, the Council should take the following actions:
32. Within one month of the date of this decision:
• Provide Mr X with a written apology for the injustice caused by the delays in responding to his ASB case review requests. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused to Mr X by the delay.
33. Within three months of the date of this decision:
• Create and implement an action plan to ensure ASB case review requests are dealt with in a timely manner and complainants are kept updated even in the face of staff absence and capacity issues within the relevant team.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find the Council at fault for delay in responding to Mr X’s ASB case review requests, causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman