Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour and poor housing conditions. We have found fault with the Council for failing to signpost Miss X to the Community Trigger mechanism, causing Miss X an injustice. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. We have also found the Council at fault for not conducting a formal risk assessment, although this did not cause Miss X an injustice. We have not found fault with how the Council engaged with the Police or responded to Miss X’s complaints about poor housing conditions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s response to her reports of antisocial behaviour and poor housing conditions. Miss X says the Council:
1. did not effectively investigate or respond to her reports of anti-social behaviour;
2. did not act on information it received from the police service about anti-social behaviour; and
3. did not use its powers to address poor housing conditions in her home.
2. Miss X says the Council did not address her concerns over a long period, impacting her wellbeing and that of her family.

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 cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
6. I considered the comments and supporting documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policies

Anti-social behaviour

8. Councils have a general duty to take action to address anti-social behaviour (ASB). Section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) defines ASB as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
9. Councils and the police can issue Community Protection Notices (CPN) to prevent anti-social behaviour which is having a negative effect on the community's quality of life, and which they decide is unreasonable. CPNs require the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to ensure it is not repeated. Failure to comply is an offence, and may result in a fine or a fixed penalty notice. Councils must issue a written warning (referred to in this statement as a CPW) in advance of the CPN.
10. The Council’s Development and Regulatory Services Enforcement Policy (ASB Policy) sets out its framework for managing enforcement matters, which includes its approach to enforcing against ASB.

Community Trigger

11. The Act gave councils new powers to address ASB. It also introduced a mechanism for victims of ASB to request a review of how the ‘relevant bodies’ handled their complaints. This is known as the ASB Case review, or Community Trigger.
12. The ‘relevant bodies’ for the Community Trigger process include the local council and the police. The relevant bodies should agree a local threshold for carrying out reviews. The threshold must include the frequency of complaints, the effectiveness of the response, and the potential harm to the victim(s) making the complaint.
13. The threshold is about the incidents reported, not whether the agency responded. The threshold should be no higher than three reports within the previous six months. The relevant bodies may choose to set a lower threshold. Each report should have been made within one month of the incident in question. The complainant must also request a review within six months of the report.
14. The Council’s criteria for use of the Community Trigger is three reports of anti-social behaviour within the previous six months, with no action being taken.
15. The Government’s statutory guidance on ASB emphasises that relevant bodies, including local authorities, should make victims aware of the right to request a case review, and when and how they can do so. The guidance says the Community Trigger is an important safety net for victims of persistent anti-social behaviour.

Licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)

16. An HMO is a property rented out by at least three people who are not from one household, but share common facilities like the bathroom, kitchen, or other communal areas. Private landlords must obtain a licence to rent out a large HMO.

Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)

17. Private landlords are responsible for maintaining rented accommodation to a certain standard. Local authorities have powers under the HHSRS to take enforcement action against private landlords where they have identified a hazard putting the safety of a tenant at risk.

Back to top

What I found

18. The chronology below is a summary of key events. It is not an exhaustive list of every exchange between the parties involved.

May to August 2020

19. Miss X wrote to the Council, complaining about noise disturbances in her building, an HMO, and her Landlord’s lack of action to address the problem. Miss X said there had been noise disturbances from other residents, mainly slamming doors, at unsociable hours. She had reported this to her Landlord, but said they had taken no action. Miss X said she suffered from poor mental health because of previous housing experiences. She said she had contacted the Police, who had said it was a matter for the Landlord to address. Miss X provided a log she had made of noise disturbances and asked the Council to intervene.
20. The Council contacted Miss X’s Landlord and suggested ways to help minimise noise disturbances in the building. The Council did not acknowledge Miss X’s letter, or update her on its actions.
21. In August 2020, Miss X wrote to the Council again to complain about her Landlord. Miss X reported drug use by other residents in the building, resulting in overpowering smells. Miss X alleged her Landlord had taken only cursory action to investigate and had switched off the fire alarm in the building to minimise the problem. Miss X had been involved in a fire previously and said this was causing distress. She again asked the Council to intervene.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X’s Landlord. It said it had received reports of a constant smell of smoke, but did not mention the report of alleged drug use. The Council said it had been told the fire alarm had been deactivated, which was illegal and would render the Landlord’s licence invalid. It asked the Landlord to respond to confirm the matter had been resolved and provide evidence of a working fire alarm. The Landlord responded, advising there were no other reports of a disturbance and none had been witnessed during visits. The Council received evidence of the fire alarm working. The Council did not provide any feedback about this to Miss X.
23. The Council later discussed the matter with Miss X. Miss X again raised concerns of drug dealing in the building and the Council advised her to contact the Police if she believed illegal activity was taking place.

October to December 2020

24. Miss X contacted the Council again, reporting the same problems. The Council contacted the Landlord. The Council clarified residents were not prohibited from smoking in individual rooms, but had been asked to smoke outside and not in the property or the common parts. The Council received confirmation of action taken to address the smells reported in the communal areas. The Landlord would put up notices regarding smoking in the building. Following this, the Council updated Miss X.
25. Miss X later contacted the Council to say nothing had changed and she would be contacting the Police about the alleged ASB. The Council took steps to verify what actions had been taken and made further recommendations to the Landlord. The Council updated Miss X. It said the Landlord was required to act reasonably to address reports of ASB, but it would be for the Police to determine whether an activity was illegal. The Council said smoking in the properties was not illegal and that a copy of the Landlord’s license would be on display in the building shortly. Miss X said the Council was not ensuring the Landlord adhered to the conditions of licence. She provided details of her recent contact with the Police.
26. In December 2020, the Council obtained pictures of installed no-smoking notices. It provided the Landlord with a guidance note on managing ASB in accordance with the licence.
27. Miss X contacted the Council again to say the licence was not on display and the alleged drug use persisted. Miss X said she had been raising her concerns for six months and no action had been taken. She said her son had been unable to stay with her recently, due to the smells encroaching into her home. She said the issue with the smoke alarm had been resolved after the Council’s intervention. The Council said it could not enforce a tenancy clause in an agreement between two private parties, but could consider if there had been a breach of licence relating to management of ASB. The Council said it could not promise a resolution, but would enquire with its own Community Safety Team and the Police.

January 2021

28. The Council received notification from the Police that no evidence of illegal drug use had been found. Miss X told the Council the Police had attended over the festive period and said the Council would receive a report from the Police about this. In response, the Council told Miss X it had received no evidence to support her allegations, or to show a breach of licence conditions. It said it could only obtain limited information, but would review any reports given to Miss X by the Police if she were to make them available. Miss X said she had given reference numbers for her contact with the Police and the Council should follow this up.
29. The Council held a meeting with the Police. All residents would be sent a notice reminding them drug use was a breach of tenancy, which could result in eviction. The Council also asked the Landlord to write to all tenants on the same subject. The Council updated Miss X.

March 2021

30. Miss X contacted the Council to say the smells had returned. Miss X said she had witnessed another resident smoking drugs and had contacted the Police and told her Landlord, who was there at the time. Miss X said the Landlord denied smelling anything. Miss X said she was waiting for the Police to attend and asked for the Council’s intervention. The Council contacted the Landlord and updated Miss X, advising that licence conditions were not a substitute for legal requirements and Miss X should contact the Police if she had concerns about illegal activity. The Council said the Landlord had been responsive to all matters raised and had acted reasonably. It said there was no justification for taking further action.
31. Miss X contacted the Council again. She reported the same issues and wanted to move from the property, but was having difficulty doing so. The Council said it would review the case with the relevant officers and would respond to her in due course. Internal records show the Council intended to bring the matter to a close as there was insufficient evidence of a breach of licensing conditions.

April 2021

32. Miss X contacted the Council seeking a planned appointment to investigate alleged drug use. Miss X continued to report sporadic incidents and said she had reported matters to the Police and her Landlord, but alleged no action had been taken. The Council said Miss X was the only resident to have complained and the Police had taken no formal action. It said it could not take or direct further action in these circumstances. Miss X told the Council other residents were unlikely to complain and while she appreciated there was a lack of evidence, she believed those involved could do more to investigate her concerns and offer support. The Council said it believed the Landlord had done all they could, but it would review the case again to see if it could take any other action. It would also pass on Miss X’s details to housing services.

May 2021

33. Miss X told the Council she had been threatened by other residents. She said she had reported this to the Police. She also told the Council of a blocked shower inside the property.
34. Internal records show the Council believed there was not enough evidence to declare a breach of the Landlord’s licence. In the review, the Council summarised the issues raised by Miss X and said it would follow up on the alleged threats made. The Council noted its view that the situation had not substantially changed from the initial reports received in 2020. The Council contacted the Police and confirmed their attendance, but received no evidence to substantiate drug use.
35. The Council arranged for an officer to attend by appointment to witness any occurrences that might constitute a nuisance. The Council also planned an inspection of the condition of the premises as a way of moving the matter forward. The Council updated Miss X of its intentions. It also checked with the Landlord whether the blocked shower had been cleared.

June 2021

36. Miss X reported noise nuisance from a neighbour and said it was severe enough that her daughter had to leave her home late into the night. Miss X said she called the Police, but alleged the neighbour stopped the noise when they attended. Miss X believed she was being intentionally targeted.
37. The planned inspection to assess the condition of the premises was cancelled due to officer absence. A reactive visit to witness alleged drug use was carried out. The Council attended quickly, but recorded it had not witnessed any evidence of drug use. A further planned visit was arranged with Miss X, but the Council again recorded it had not witnessed any drug use or other nuisance.
38. The Council arranged a meeting with the Police service. Neither agency said it had evidenced drug use. The Council planned to carry out an inspection of the premises to assess its condition. Internal notes show the Council intended to close the matter if it identified no further issues. The agencies discussed issuing a Community Protection Warning (CPW) to Miss X, for misusing the emergency services. The Council took steps to make sure any such notice would not affect Miss X’s rehousing opportunities. Internal notes show the Council said although it would issue the CPW as part of a joint action, the warning should only seek to limit unwarranted contact with the Police, not the Council.
39. Before serving the CPW, the Council discussed the matter again with Miss X. Miss X said she had been invited to the meeting with the Police and the Council, but would have found it intimidating to attend. The Council told Miss X it was continuing to investigate her complaint and would make available an officer Miss X could call to report a nuisance. This resource would only be available for a short time. The Council encouraged Miss X to engage with her Landlord on other matters. Miss X asked for details about the meeting, but the Council said it could not provide any minutes.

July 2021

40. On 1 July, Miss X contacted the Council about repairs needed inside the property. The Council’s inspection had been rescheduled for the end of the month and Miss X was unhappy with this, as she felt the repairs merited more serious attention. The Council said it needed to provide notice to the Landlord for access, in line with the relevant legislation, and this was the agreed appointment date. Miss X raised her dissatisfaction with not being told what happened in the Council’s meeting with the Police.
41. On the same day, the Council served Miss X with the CPW. The warning said Miss X’s conduct was having a detrimental impact on others in the locality and was unreasonable. It said Miss X should not call 999 unless there was a genuine emergency, or contact the Police unless there was a genuine reason to call. The warning said making false or exaggerated allegations would be considered wasting Police time. Any problems at the address should be reported to the relevant body responsible: either the Landlord, the Council, or the Police in an emergency. The warning was in place for six months. If Miss X violated the terms of the warning, she could be served with a Community Protection Notice (CPN) and issued a fine.
42. Throughout July, Miss X raised repairs issues inside the property with the Council. In internal discussions, the Council considered whether any of the defects reported would breach the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The Council took steps to confirm the exact nature of the internal issues with Miss X. It apologised that the previous conditions inspection had been cancelled, but confirmed the appointment for the end of the month. The Council asked Miss X to provide more details about issues with the electrical sockets and possible trip hazards, and said it could arrange a virtual inspection, if this was feasible.
43. Miss X told the Council she felt her Landlord would not believe her complaints and was using the CPW as a reason to ignore any genuine concerns. She said she was having difficulties with her neighbour and felt discouraged from contacting the Police. The Council said the CPW did not prevent Miss X from contacting the Police in a legitimate emergency. The Council asked for pictures of the defects inside the property, but Miss X said pictures would not capture the problems. The Council said it would try to have somebody attend as soon as possible in relation to the repairs. Miss X said the smoking and drug use had subsided.
44. The Council arranged to inspect the property earlier than planned, on the 16 July, without the Landlord. The Council identified the following actions from its inspection:
• a section of the floor needed to be repaired;
• a new electrical safety certificate was needed, showing the fittings were safe;
• the kitchen sink needed resealing; and
• the Council would request the Landlord display contact information in the common areas of the building.
45. The Council asked the Landlord to arrange these repairs.
46. Miss X explained her relationship with her Landlord had become more strained. Miss X accidentally locked herself out of the property and said the Landlord could not attend for two days. Miss X asked the Council to intervene, but the Council said this was a private matter. Miss X continually raised delays in the works being completed by the Landlord and provided the Council with text exchanges she said showed the Landlord’s poor behaviour towards her. Miss X said the matter was affecting her mental health. The Council encouraged both parties to work together to agree access to the property and advised Miss X to seek independent legal advice about aspects of the relationship with the Landlord.

August to November 2021

47. In August, the Council received evidence the electrical safety checks had been completed. The Council asked the Landlord to provide a copy of the report to Miss X.
48. In September, Miss X contacted the Council again. She said there were repairs still not completed and the noise and smell nuisances had returned. She said she had blocked her Landlord’s communications, as she felt threatened by them. Miss X said the situation was having a negative impact on her mental health and that of her children. Miss X told the Council the Police had attended again because of a violent encounter involving her neighbours. The Council referred Miss X’s reports to the Police and treated the correspondence from September as a formal complaint.
49. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in October 2021. In its response, the Council:
• listed the defects identified during the inspection and provided an update on each. The Council said Miss X needed to agree access arrangements with her Landlord to address any outstanding matters and encouraged them to maintain contact.
• said reports of drug use in the property had not been substantiated by the Police or by attending Council officers, despite the Council making a reactive resource available. The Council said it was not illegal for people to smoke in their own rooms.
• said it had asked the Police about Miss X’s report of a violent altercation, but the Police had no details at the time of the check and had provided none since.
• provided details of how to contact housing services.
• said it had reviewed issuing the CPW and felt this had been justified as a multi-agency action. The Council said the Police had also considered it again and supported the warning. The Council said the warning had seemed to have the desired effect, as Miss X had not contacted the Police recently.
• gave details of how to access Council services, including the Noise and Nuisance team, Community Safety Team and Private Sector Housing. It also advised it could refer Miss X to its Adult Social Care services if Miss X thought this would be helpful and provided consent.
50. Miss X was dissatisfied and requested escalation to stage two of the complaints procedure, citing flaws and inconsistencies in the response. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s request and escalated her complaint.
51. The Council received notification from the Police that Miss X had reported threats from her neighbour. The Police said no matters were being pursued and advice had been given. The Council noted this report. It contacted Miss X and provided details of the out-of-hours noise nuisance service for the upcoming weekend, in case there was an issue.
52. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in November 2021. In its response, the Council said:
• it had reviewed its stage one response and did not think there were any inconsistencies or flaws;
• it could not add anything to what it had said previously and re-emphasised the offer of a referral to Adult Social Care, pending Miss X’s consent; and
• the complaint was not upheld.
53. Miss X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Late 2021 into 2022

54. Miss X continued to contact the Council about repairs issues in the property. In December 2021, Miss X reported a loss of heating. The Council inspected the heating system in the Landlord’s presence and noted low radiator temperatures. The Landlord carried out repairs with the Council present. The Council noted that some other matters listed previously had not been addressed, which the Landlord said was due to a lack of access. The Council pressed for a further appointment and notified Miss X.
55. During our investigation, Miss X informed the Ombudsman she was later rehoused elsewhere due to concerns for her wellbeing.

Analysis

Council’s response to reports of ASB

56. Miss X complains about the way the Council responded to her reports of ASB. The Council’s ASB Policy is not prescriptive in what actions officers should take, but outlines the enforcement options available to the Council.
57. I understand Miss X does not agree with the Council’s chosen course of action. This is Miss X’s right and, as explained further in this statement, there are procedures in place to raise such concerns.
58. It is a matter of professional judgement for the Council to decide what actions it should take based on the information it receives. I cannot say the Council should have committed to one specific course of action over another, providing the Council acted without fault.
59. The evidence suggests the Council considered each of Miss X’s reports and took what it believed to be reasonable actions to address the problem at the time. This included liaising with the Police, Miss X’s Landlord, and ensuring coordination between different teams in the Council. These actions were proportionate and relevant responses to the issues being raised, with the involvement of relevant agencies. I have not therefore found fault in how the Council responded.

Risk assessment

60. The Council’s ASB Policy says it will use risk assessments to concentrate resources. Although the evidence suggests the Council considered Miss X’s reports and considered what actions to take at each stage, the Council does not appear to have formally assessed the risk posed to Miss X.
61. Given the reference to the use of risk assessments in the ASB Policy, I consider the lack of formal risk assessment is fault. I have not identified that this caused an injustice to Miss X, given the Council’s consideration of her reports. However, the updated statutory guidance emphasises that conducting continuous and organised risk assessments is good practice. The Council should ensure officers are aware of the importance of conducting risk assessments and highlight its own policy on this.

Community Trigger

62. Miss X repeatedly questioned whether the approach being used in her case was the correct one. The Community Trigger is important precisely because it allows victims of alleged ASB to ask the relevant bodies to consider this question. I have seen no evidence the Council told Miss X about her right to request an ASB Case Review using the Community Trigger, when Miss X’s reports seemingly met the local threshold. I find fault with the Council for not making Miss X aware of her right to use this procedure.
63. I believe this fault has caused Miss X an injustice. I cannot say Miss X would have applied for a Community Trigger review, or what the outcome would have been if she had; however, this uncertainty is an injustice in and of itself.
64. I note the Council has information about the Community Trigger on its website. The updated statutory guidance places an emphasis on councils ensuring complainants are aware of the procedure, however, and I consider there were several opportunities to signpost Miss X to it. Not all complainants will have access to the internet, or report ASB to the Council online. There is a wider public interest in ensuring complainants are aware of their right to request a review using this mechanism.

CPW

65. Miss X told me the Council issued her with a CPW preventing her from contacting the Police, but says she was only following the Council’s instructions to do so. Miss X says this caused uncertainty about when she could or should contact the Police.
66. I consider it appropriate for the Council to direct Miss X to contact the Police to report criminal matters. This does not mean the Police could not, independently, consider Miss X’s behaviour unreasonable and impose a sanction as it saw fit. However, I can appreciate why this approach caused Miss X some confusion. The Police also have the power to serve CPWs, and it may be this confusion could have been avoided if the Police had issued the warning directly, rather than the Council issuing it.
67. In either respect, it was ultimately for the Council to decide whether there were grounds to issue the CPW. Although it may have been more helpful for the Police to do it, this does not mean the Council was at fault.

Alleged breach of licence

68. Miss X says the Council did not ensure her Landlord adhered to the licence conditions and could have done more to compel intervention to manage the reported ASB. The evidence available shows that whenever Miss X raised a concern about her Landlord, the Council followed this up through enquiries. The licence contains a specific clause requiring landlords to show they have taken action to manage ASB in their properties. This is a professional decision and there is evidence the Council actively considered whether there was evidence of a breach of licencing conditions, before deciding there was not. I have not identified fault in respect of this.

Engagement with the Police service

69. Miss X says the Council did not act on reports it received from the Police service. The available evidence shows the Council checked with the Police about incidents raised by Miss X. The Council and Police often engaged over Miss X’s reports of ASB and coordinated an approach. I have not therefore identified any fault by the Council on this point.

Lack of enforcement over property repairs

70. Miss X says the Council did not compel her Landlord to carry out repairs needed inside the property. The evidence suggests when Miss X raised repairs issues, the Council followed up directly with the Landlord. The Council did not identify serious defects requiring enforcement notices to be issued when it inspected, and encouraged Miss X and the Landlord to agree access arrangements. The Council could have been clearer to Miss X about whether it considered the repairs issues to be significant; I do not consider this to be a significant failure, however, and have not made a finding of fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

71. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
• provide guidance for relevant staff on the importance of conducting risk assessments;
• provide a written apology to Miss X for the failure to advise her of her right to request a review of her case using the Community Trigger and the uncertainty this caused; and
• circulate guidance reminding relevant staff of the local threshold for the Community Trigger, and ensure staff are signposting towards it when they have a complainant who is at, or near, the threshold.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to recommendations to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman