Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

Introduction

Councils have a duty to investigate anti-social behaviour such as excessive noise, harassment and petty vandalism – and, where appropriate, have a range of powers to tackle it. It is often not a quick or easy thing to resolve, but councils should act promptly on reports of ASB, investigate thoroughly and properly consider what powers they can use in any given situation. They should also liaise with other agencies, such as the police or housing associations, where relevant.

Most people who complain about ASB talk about the effect it has on their quality of life. They may lose sleep, their property may be damaged, and they may even fear being at home. If councils delay their investigations, fail to properly consider the evidence, or make it difficult for people to get a response when they make contact, these feelings can be exacerbated considerably.

We must, however, ensure that any remedy we can recommend is only for any additional injustice a council’s fault has caused. Distress, frustration, and loss of amenity arising from the ASB itself is the responsibility of the perpetrator(s), not the council.

Corrective action

• Carry out further, properly conducted investigation of the situation. This may include speaking to the complainant and/or other potential witnesses, reviewing existing evidence such as CCTV or other camera footage, or installing monitoring equipment.
• Contact other agencies where there is potentially relevant information to be shared.
• Carry out a vulnerability risk assessment for the complainant to properly consider their circumstances and any reasonable adjustments.
• Expedite carrying out an ASB case review (Community Trigger). Note, this is to be used where our investigation shows the case probably meets the local threshold, or there are circumstances which may justify disapplying the threshold. 

Quantifiable loss

• Sometimes ASB involves damage to a complainant’s property, which means they may face a cost in repairing or replacing it. Complainants may also feel they are forced to install CCTV or other equipment in response to ASB.
• However, it is very unlikely we can say these costs would have been avoided had it not been for fault by the council – again, even if the council has got something wrong, this does not mean it is responsible for the perpetrator’s actions. And so we would not usually recommend the council reimburse a complainant for this type of quantifiable cost, regardless of any other findings we might make.

Symbolic payments

• To reflect distress or time and trouble in pursuing a complaint. In line with our general approach to symbolic payments for distress (and time and trouble if flawed complaint handling) set out above. But, to do this, we must first be satisfied there were clear, definable actions the council should have taken, which would likely have made a significant difference to the situation.
• Where we consider that delay or inaction by the council has caused a demonstrable loss of amenity – by which we mean impact on a complainant’s quality of life – we will usually recommend a payment in the range of £100 to £500 a month, taking account of the severity of the loss and the circumstances of the complainant.
• For a minor loss of amenity, such as occasional noise disturbance during the daytime, we would likely recommend a lower payment. For a more serious loss of amenity, such as a vulnerable complainant or young family suffering routine sleep deprivation, this may merit a higher payment.

Service improvement

• Remind relevant officers of aspects of law, government guidance or council policy, where there is evidence they misunderstand or routinely overlook these;
• Amend and reissue a council policy which is not in accordance with the law or government guidance; or
• Review a selection of recent cases, to identify any consistent flaws or weaknesses in how they are being handled.

Context – aggravating and mitigating factors

An ASB situation can be considerably aggravated where the complainant is vulnerable, such as because of age, disability, or isolation from support networks. Refer to the general guidance on vulnerability set out above.

On the other hand, we may find mitigation where the complainant is also responsible for ASB towards the opposing party, such as in an entrenched neighbour dispute. However, we are not the decision maker and should not apportion blame in what is likely a highly contested situation.

The extent to which a complainant has complied with sensible advice or support from the council is relevant. For example, we might decide someone not completing incident reports, as a council has requested, would somewhat mitigate injustice.

Remedy examples

Statutory nuisance

Introduction

Councils must take reasonably practical steps to investigate complaints of various nuisances that are prejudicial to health or cause a nuisance. These nuisances include noise, smells, dust, smoke and artificial light pollution. Councils can only take enforcement action if they identify that a statutory nuisance exists or is likely to occur or recur. Councils have a similar duty to take steps to prevent nuisance. 

Whether the problem amounts to a statutory nuisance depends on type, frequency, duration, and timing of the nuisance and is a matter of professional judgement.   

Corrective action

• Investigate the issue correctly, having due regard to relevant evidence.
• Re-evaluate evidence to see if action can now be taken.
• Consider other powers available (for example informal powers) to the council to address the nuisance.

Symbolic payment

• If on the balance of probabilities, a properly conducted investigation would have led to action to address nuisance sooner, we will usually recommend a symbolic payment for loss of amenity in the range of £200 to £500 a month, taking account of the severity of the loss and the circumstances of the complainant.
• Where the loss of amenity was minor, for example intermittent fumes prevented ventilation of the home during the day, the payment would likely be lower. Where the impact on daily life was significant, for example round-the-clock noise disturbed a housebound complainant, this would merit a higher payment.

Service improvement

• Review policy to ensure it reflects statutory guidance and the law.
• Provide training for officers on investigating nuisance complaints.
• Note: we would not recommend a review of recent cases as this is something we should investigate using our 26D powers if necessary.

Context – aggravating and mitigating factors

A statutory nuisance situation can be considerably aggravated where the complainant is vulnerable, such as because of age, disability, or isolation from support networks. Refer to the general guidance on vulnerability set out above.

On the other hand, we may find mitigation where the complainant is also responsible for causing nuisance to the opposing party, such as in an entrenched neighbour dispute. However we are not the decision maker and should not apportion blame in what is likely a highly contested situation.

The extent to which a complainant has complied with sensible advice or support from the council is relevant. For example, we might decide someone not completing incident reports, as a council has requested would somewhat mitigate injustice.

Remedies example

Refuse collection and recycling

Introduction

Councils have a duty to collect household waste free of charge, but they can limit the number of bins they are prepared to collect from each property and the frequency of collection. The council can tell residents where to put the bin and what can and cannot be put in it.

People often complain about the lack of bin collections, insufficient bin space and where the council specifies the bin must be placed. Councils may also remove abandoned waste, including cars.

Injustice can be relatively minor although systemic failure, for example in dealing with assisted bin collections (for people requiring collection and return of bins to a location), can lead to more significant injustice.

Corrective action

• Consider moving wheeled bin collection points.
• Re-assess the needs of disabled residents in deciding wheeled bin collection points.
• Improve arrangements for monitoring waste collection.
• Monitoring and taking action to address persistent problems – for example with missed bin collections, including assisted collections.

Quantifiable loss

• Reimburse the nominal costs of taking household waste to a tip when it should have been collected.
• Pay the value of a car wrongly removed and destroyed.

Service improvements

• Review contract arrangements and monitor compliance where systemic issues occur.
• Training for bin collection crews, for example in the importance of meeting agreed reasonable adjustments.

Context – aggravating and mitigating factors

A complainant may be unable to place and collect a bin as normal and the council may have agreed an assisted collection service.

Remedy example

Cemeteries and crematoria

Introduction

Faults in the administration of cemeteries and crematoria can cause relatives significant distress. This is often closely associated with, and hard to distinguish from, the inevitable distress associated with the context of what has happened, irrespective of fault.

This is particularly so when the impact of a fault only becomes apparent at a burial or other significant occasion (such as the anniversary of the death). Faults can include incorrect allocation of a grave plot, burial in the wrong plot, damage to graves, poor maintenance, failure to address vandalism, and failure to take account of local criteria when approving memorials. Councils also test the safety of memorials at regular intervals. Assessment criteria need to be clear and easily understood.

Councils have a duty to bury or cremate anyone who dies or is found dead in their area where it seems no suitable arrangements have been made. Councils also have a duty to dispose of the deceased’s property. Councils should make reasonable attempts to contact the next of kin before organising a funeral or disposing of property. Failure to deal sensitively with burial, and with the disposal of the deceased’s goods, can lead to considerable distress. It can add significantly to the grief felt by the deceased’s family and next of kin. It can lead to the loss of intensely personal items such as family photographs or objects that a next of kin would treasure. And it can deny someone the chance to arrange a personal funeral and pay their respects.

Corrective action

• Support the complainant(or third party) through the process of applying to have remains exhumed and re-buried.
• Revise risk assessment procedures, policies and training.
• Improve publicity about the action the council will take if it finds a memorial is unsafe.
• Install a memorial seat or feature to commemorate the deceased.
• Arrange for bereavement counselling.

Quantifiable loss

• Costs associated with exhumation and re-burial.
• Cost of repairing, restoring or replacing a memorial.

Symbolic payments

• Caution should be used in recommending (almost inevitably) small, symbolic financial payments in the context of an unavoidably distressing situation. Such a remedy may inadvertently be seen as disrespectful and cause additional distress.
• It may be more appropriate in the circumstances to push for a meaningful and effective apology plus service improvements. 

Service improvement

• Revising risk assessment procedures.
• Amending and reissuing a council policy which is not in accordance with the law or government guidance policies.
• Arranging training for relevant staff members of aspects of law, government guidance or council policy, where there is evidence they misunderstand or routinely overlook these.

Context – aggravating and mitigating factors

The typical reaction to any intervention is anger, distress, and shock. In assessing injustice it is important to separate the natural distress over the death of a loved one, and the additional distress arising from council fault. This is still likely to be significant.

Remedy example

Hackney carriage and private taxi hire

Introduction

Councils have duties to license hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. We can consider complaints by taxi drivers and taxi driver associations about issues such as increases to fees, the number of licences issued in the council’s area, and vehicle standards and testing.

Councils will consider complaints about drivers who break the conditions of their licence. The most common feature of these complaints is alleged poor customer service or fare disputes and unfair ‘disciplinary’ action taken by councils against taxi drivers without giving the driver a right of representation.

Action can lead to the loss of a licence and thus someone’s livelihood so it can cause great distress and anxiety. Delay or lack of action by a council may also result in avoidable distress.

Corrective action

• Invite a new licence application and consider it.
• Start or review an investigation where there has been procedural fault in the initial investigation.
• Put statements on file where a driver may not have had the opportunity to put forward their version of events, and reconsider or take this information into account.
• Publicly confirm the final outcome, where a flawed or delayed investigation has led to loss of reputation affecting the complainant, and the new finding exonerates the complainant.

Quantifiable loss

Costs of a vehicle bought or disposed of on the basis of wrong advice given by the council.

However, care needs to be taken to ensure this injustice is caused as a result of identified fault. We also need to consider whether the complainant’s actions were sensible and proportionate in the circumstances.

Remedy example