Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Councils handling of their anti-social behaviour reports, and failure to enforce a community protection notice (CPN) and delay in providing a case outcome. We find the Council properly investigated their reports but there was fault in the Council’s approach to communication and support which caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable uncertainty, distress and frustration. The Council should apologise to Mr and Mrs X and make a payment to address the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of herself and her husband (Mr X) the Council:
1. Failed to investigate and enforce breaches of a Community Protection Notice (CPN).
2. Provided inaccurate information about an appeal against the CPN and delayed providing reasons for not taking enforcement action.
3. Failed to support them in line with the Council’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy and maintain timely communication.
2. Mrs X says the Council caused her and Mr X avoidable uncertainty and distress. She says they had difficulties accessing their home and were left vulnerable to physical and verbal abuse from their neighbours. She says they also went to time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. During my investigation I spoke to Mrs X to discuss her complaint and considered information she provided. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response together with relevant law and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

8. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
9. 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. (Section 43 (1), Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
10. A CPN requires the behaviour to stop and, where appropriate, require the recipient to take reasonable steps to stop it happening again. (Sections 43 (3) Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
11. Failure to comply with a CPN is an offence and the issuing authority may consider fixed penalty notices or prosecution which may result in fines, forfeiture or seizure orders. When deciding which sanction to choose on non- compliance the issuing authority should, where appropriate consider the potential wishes of the victim. (Statutory Guidance, Anti-social Behaviour Powers, 2023)
12. A person can appeal a CPN in the magistrates' court within 21 days of receiving it if they disagree with the council’s decision. (Section 46 (2), Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
13. While an appeal against a CPN is in progress:
1. a requirement imposed by the notice to stop doing specified things remains in effect, unless the court orders otherwise, but
2. any other requirement imposed by the notice is of no effect.

For this purpose, an appeal is “in progress” until it is finally determined or is withdrawn. (Section 46 (3) Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)

The Council’s ASB policy

14. The Council’s ASB policy in place at the time states it will:
• Not consider non-ASB related criminal matters (assault, public order issues, harassment), driveway ownership and access disputes as ASB.
• Take a multi-agency approach to the managing ASB reports. It will tackle ASB in a proportionate and reasonable manner which may initially include verbal warnings, written warnings, and mediation.
• Consider formal action such as civil injunctions, criminal behaviour orders and community protection notices where appropriate.
• Give clear advice and appropriate support to those reporting ASB. This support will be enhanced with more ‘vulnerable’ victims to include risk assessments and providing timely responses to keep victims updated on progress of their case or complaint.
• Will treat those reporting ASB sympathetically and sensitively and help prevent intimidation through working with the Police. It will also manage expectations by clearly explaining what realistic outcomes can be achieved.

What happened

15. There is a history of disputes between Mr and Mrs X and their neighbour (‘the neighbour’). The records say:
• A car (‘the vehicle’) was parked by the neighbour near Mrs X’s front door for a long time. Mrs X said she has disabilities and the vehicle affected easy access to her property for her, visitors, and deliveries.
• The Council took legal advice and in late June 2022, it issued a written warning on the neighbours to remove the vehicle.
• In mid-July, the Council served a community protection notice (‘CPN’) on the neighbour to permanently remove the vehicle and not park further vehicles in a similar manner.

Mrs X’s ASB reports

16. In late July Mr and Mrs X submitted an ASB report to say the vehicle remained parked had was causing continued difficulties.
17. In early August Mr and Mrs X made multiple ASB reports on the same date. These said the neighbours had trespassed on their property and made offensive remarks about Mrs X’s disability.
18. In response the Council emailed Mr and Mrs X, it:
• Set out the Council’s investigation process for CPN breaches.
• Said it would establish if the CPN had been appealed and provide an update.
• Explained it would need to meet evidential and public interest tests to consider further action as it could not remove the vehicle without a court order.
• Acknowledged their August ASB reports but said these incidents and evidence from Mrs X amounted to a neighbour’s disputes unrelated to the CPN.
• Advised the legal process and backlog meant it would take some time to resolve the CPN if it ultimately decided to enforce. Mr and Mrs X could therefore consider a private civil injunction for a quicker remedy.

CPN appeal enquiries

19. The records say, in mid-September the neighbour’s solicitors contacted the Council to challenge the CPN and advised it was being appealed.
20. Mrs X said the Council then advised her it could not take any further action until the appeal was determined.
21. In October the Council wrote to Mr X to say:
• It was still waiting for the Court to confirm the CPN appeal.
• Mrs X could send fortnightly ASB logs for consideration and evidence gathering. However, it would not include any matters under criminal investigation as ASB.
22. In early November the Council emailed Mr and Mrs X to say:
• It was now seeking an urgent update about the appeal but there was continued delay from the court.
• It had reviewed the case and believed majority of the issues reported were civil disputes or police matters outside its ASB jurisdiction.
• It suggested mediation as a long-term solution but confirmed it would still be pursuing action for the CPN breach.
23. The records indicate, in November Mr and Mrs X obtained a temporary civil injunction against the neighbour to prevent harassment.
24. The available evidence shows the Council made multiple enquiries about the appeal between August 2022 and April 2023, with the Court and the neighbour’s solicitors without success.
25. Mrs X has provided a chronology of contact with the Council. This says Mrs X sought further updates from the Council in March 2023 and was told an urgent response would follow. She said he did not receive any updates and therefore sent further emails in April and May also without response.

The Council’s further case review

26. In early June 2023, the Council held a case review meeting with its legal team and the Police. The records say it then decided not to pursue enforcement action because:
• It believed the CPN was appealed in time and had to be determined or withdrawn before it could take enforcement steps.
• It no longer believed it could meet the evidential tests for a successful court prosecution.
27. In mid-June, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X to explain:
• Its reasons for not taking further enforcement action as set out at paragraph 26 (above).
• It did not usually get involved in driveway ownership and access disputes in line with its ASB policy. It decided to assist in Mr and Mrs X’s case, but it was now their responsibility to seek legal advice and take civil action at their own expense.
• It noted Mr and Mrs X had obtained a private civil injunction. They should therefore apply to vary and enforce the injunction for the parked vehicle.

Mrs X’s complaint

28. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council, they said it:
• Misled them about the appeal between August 2022 and June 2023 and incorrectly used it as reason not to enforce the CPN.
• Could have addressed the neighbour’s failure to remove the parked vehicle as the appeal status had no impact on its enforcement powers.
• Had ignored their wishes as victims of continued ASB, which had caused them significant distress and frustration.

The Council’s response

29. In reply, the Council:
• Re-iterated its earlier explanation as set out at paragraphs 27 (above) and apologised for not being able to assist further.
• Said the CPN appeal had no bearing on the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action which was based on the evidential issues previously mentioned.
30. Unhappy with the Council’s response Mr and Mrs X approached the Ombudsman.

Was there fault and did it cause injustice?

i) Mrs X says the Council failed to investigate and enforce breaches of a Community Protection Notice (CPN).

31. Mr and Mrs X submitted ASB reports in July and August 2022, shortly after the CPN was issued. The records show the Council logged these on its system and then considered the nature of the ASB incidents. It then wrote to Mr and Mrs X to explain the steps it followed to investigate suspected CPN breaches (Paragraph 17). The records show it explained the August ASB reports were about civil issues which it could not address in line with its ASB policy (Paragraph 14). In respect of the July ASB report (paragraph 16), it clarified any further action to remove the parked car would need to meet legal and evidential burdens and could take some time. It therefore advised Mr and Mrs X to consider a private injunction. Provisionally, the Council’s initial response was in line with the guidance as set out paragraph 8 (above) and its ASB policy. This required the Council to consider and respond to ASB reports, provide clear advice, and support and manage the expectations of those reporting ASB. I do not find the Council failed to properly investigate Mr and Mrs X’s ASB reports. 
32. Mr and Mrs X believe the Council failed to enforce the CPN between August 2022 and June 2023. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether the Council should have taken specific enforcement steps after issuing the CPN, that is the Council’s job. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made. If we consider there was no fault in the decision-making process, we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision. The evidence indicates the Council took legal advice before issuing the CPN and subsequently engaged with Mr and Mrs X to gather evidence. This would have been with a view to building a case for prosecution. The Council’s emails to Mr and Mrs X in August, and November 2022 also demonstrate its initial intentions, but reminds them of the potential obstacles and likely delay if it ultimately chose to proceed. However, matters took a turn when the Council received correspondence from the neighbour’s solicitors challenging the CPN and notice of a potential appeal.
33. From this point onwards, the Council’s focus shifted to confirming the appeal before progressing with any enforcement. I cannot question the Council’s decision-making about the appeal as it was guided by legal advice and applied using its professional judgement. However, I note its June 2023 case review decision was based on its view that an appeal was lodged. But its later complaint response to Mr and Mrs X said this was not the case. It said it could not assist as it had not met the evidentiary requirements and it did not normally get involved in neighbour access disputes in line with its ASB policy. In my view, its responses were inconsistent and unhelpful as Mr and Mrs X believed the Council had properly considered these issues before deciding to issue the CPN. And its communications between August 2022 until June 2023 lead them to believe the Council was committed to addressing the CPN breach. I find the Council’s eventual communication confirming it would no longer assist was not in line with its ASB policy, which states it will maintain clear and effective communication and be transparent in managing complainant expectations. The Council’s letter also did not explain to Mr and Mrs X how it reached the decision that the evidence was inadequate. This caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable uncertainty, distress, and frustration as they had waited for approximately 11 months for an outcome which had not ultimately met their expectations without an adequate explanation. This is injustice.

ii) Mrs X says the Council provided inaccurate information about the status of an appeal against the CPN and delayed providing its reasons for not pursuing further enforcement action.

34. Mr and Mrs X said the Council advised them an appeal had been submitted in September 2022 and it was awaiting court confirmation (Paragraph 20). Mrs X later complained that the Council had misled her and Mr X throughout its investigation. However, the records say the Council told Mr and Mrs X that it was still trying to establish the status of the appeal between September and November 2022 (Paragraphs 18, 21 and 22). I have not seen any communications from the Council to Mr and Mrs X from this point onwards until its final complaint response confirming the position of the appeal. The available records suggest the Council may have taken the neighbours solicitors communication (paragraph 19) as evidence of there being an appeal and it is possible Mr and Mrs X also came to the same conclusion when the Council made continued efforts to find out from the court. This does not amount to fault on the Council’s part. Provisionally, I therefore do not find the Council provided Mr and Mrs X inaccurate information about the status of the CPN appeal.
35. The available evidence shows Mrs X chased the Council for an outcome about the enforcement case between early March and late April 2023. The records do not show the Council providing a response until mid-June. I find the Council’s failure to respond was not in line with its ASB policy which requires it to maintain effective communication. This caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and frustration about whether the Council was properly managing their reports. This is injustice.

iii) Mrs X says the Council failed to support her and Mr X with CPN related issues in line with the Council’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy and maintain timely communication

36. Mr and Mrs X said the Council did not support them and they felt ignored as victims of ASB. However, the records show the Council was initially proactive in its engagement with Mr and Mrs X. The Council sought legal advice and decided to issue a CPN to resolve the parked vehicle. Between August and November 2022, it remained in frequent communication with them and provided suitable updates. The nature of the communications was supportive and open about the Council’s progress. This was in line with the Council’s ASB policy (Paragraph 14), and I do not find fault in respect of its initial response.
37. However, the Council subsequently focused its efforts on steps to establish the appeal until its June 2023 case review meeting and final decision to Mr and Mrs X. The records do not show any communications from the Council with Mr and Mrs X to show if it explored if there was anything further it could do support them in the above period. This was fault and inconsistent with the Council’s ASB policy which states it will keep victims of ASB properly updated and assess risks. Mr and Mrs X therefore felt distressed and the need to chase the Council for updates. I have already identified fault in the Council’s failing to respond to Mrs X at paragraph 35 (above). This is injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within one month of final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mr and Mrs X, taking account of our published guidance on remedies (section 3.2) which sets out our expectations on what an effective apology should contain, for:
• Failing to maintain clear and effective communication with them about their ASB case and not managing their expectations in line with its ASB policy and any avoidable uncertainty, distress and frustration caused.
• Failing to respond to their communications with an update on their case between early March and mid-June 2023 and any avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused.
• Failing to explore any further support it could offer Mr and Mrs X in the period December 2022 until May 2023 in line with its ASB policy and any avoidable distress caused.

b) Make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X of £250 to reflect their avoidable distress, uncertainty, and frustration.

39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find fault which caused injustice to Mr and Mrs X. I have made recommendations to address the injustice caused.
41. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman