Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not take appropriate action following his reports of anti-social behaviour. Mr X says this impacted his physical health and emotional wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and take service improvement action to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not take suitable action following his multiple reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. Mr X says it impacted his physical health and emotional wellbeing.

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 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)
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. 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

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

What should have happened

8. 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 its powers is most suitable.
9. 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 can only investigate the council’s actions as a social landlord in some circumstances); and/or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

10. 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.

Statutory nuisance

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The Council’s published policy on its website says it takes the following action when noise nuisance is reported:
• an investigation will be opened if the incident is so significant the it affects many residents and businesses within the area or it is deemed high risk by the police.
• an investigation will be opened if three or four incidents are reported within a four week period.
• Logs one off or infrequent incidents for monitoring but no further action will be taken.

Community protection notices

16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.

Anti-social behaviour case review

19. 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’.
20. 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. The threshold is about the incidents reported, not whether the agency responded.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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

24. In October 2024, Mr X completed the Council’s anti-social behaviour report form to report his neighbour using drugs.
25. In December, the Council contacted the neighbours’ landlord about the behaviour.
26. In January 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X’s neighbour about their alleged drug use.
27. In February, Mr X made a noise nuisance report. The Council sent a letter to the neighbours regarding the noise nuisance.
28. The Council completed a home visit and found no evidence of drug use at that time. Mr X told the Council his neighbour was not using their shared bins correctly. The next day, the Council attended in person again and gave advice to the neighbour about how to correctly dispose of their waste.
29. In March, Mr X made two further noise nuisance reports.
30. In April, Mr X made another noise nuisance report. Mr X attended a meeting with the Council and the police to discuss the antisocial behaviour. Mr X was advised to report any future concerns of drug use to the police.
31. In May, Mr X reported further antisocial behaviour to the Council and several more noise nuisance reports. The Council told Mr X to report any aggressive behaviour to the police.
32. In June, Mr X made six further reports of noise nuisance to the Council.
33. Mr X requested an anti-social behaviour case review.
34. In August, the Council declined Mr X’s request for an anti-social behaviour case review. It told him its threshold for a care review was three reports of antisocial behaviour relating to the same issue where no action has been taken by relevant agencies. It said because the Council and the police were working together to address his concerns, his request did not meet its threshold.
35. In September, the Council issued a formal warning to the leaseholder the neighbour’s property regarding the reported waste issue.
36. Mr X made a formal complaint. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It told him the Council had managed his case to a satisfactory standard. It told Mr X its team had reviewed the noise nuisance report recordings and considered the reports indicated an actionable level of noise disturbance. It told Mr X his case was not under live enforcement investigation and so it had not provided any updates or taken further action since the February 2025 letter to his neighbour. It also told Mr X any enforcement action for the alleged drug use, including issuing a community protection notice, was solely the responsibility of the police.
37. Mr X’s neighbour has since moved out of the area.

Analysis

38. The Council’s policy says it will investigate noise nuisance reports if three or more are made within a four-week period. In its final complaints’ response, the Council said the recordings Mr X sent indicated an actionable level of noise disturbance. Mr X made more than three reports of noise nuisance within a four-week period from May to July. It was clear the letter provided by the Council in February was not effective and the issue persisted. The Council should have investigated the noise reports in May, June and July. It did not investigate any of Mr X’s noise reports and so did not act in line with its policy. This is fault. However, I cannot say, even on balance, what the outcome of any investigation would have been if the Council had acted in line with its policy. I do consider the fault caused Mr X avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and frustration, which is injustice.
39. I am not satisfied the Council properly considered its own powers in this case. The Council told Mr X any decision to issue a community protection notice was for the police only. The Council has the power to issue a community protection notice. This demonstrates the Council did not have due consideration to its own powers, which is fault. I cannot say, even on balance, what action the Council would have taken if it had properly considered its powers. I do consider the fault caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration, which is injustice.
40. We expect councils to set its threshold for an antisocial behaviour case review in line with the threshold guidance set out in the law. The law says the maximum threshold should be three reports of antisocial behaviour in six months. The law says the threshold should only be based on the number of reports, and not the response from agencies. The Council’s published threshold on its website is three reports of antisocial behaviour relating to the same issue and no action has been taken by relevant agencies. This is fault. Mr X met the legal threshold and so the Council should have completed a case review for Mr X’s case. I cannot say, even on balance, what action the Council would have decided to take with a fresh look at the case within the case review process. However, the Council’s denial of a case review when he met the legal threshold caused Mr X additional avoidable frustration and distress, which is injustice.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks of my final decision statement, the Council agreed to:
1. make a written apology to Mr X for the avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and distress it caused him by not following its own noise nuisance policy, not properly considering its own powers, using the wrong threshold for a case review and wrongly denying Mr X access to the case review process.
2. make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr X to recognise the avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and distress caused by the faults outlined above.
3. provide an action plan which details the action it will take to improve its response to reports of noise nuisance and other antisocial behaviour considering the fault identified in this case.
4. update its published threshold for the antisocial behaviour case review process to ensure it is in line with the law.
42. 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.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman