The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly deal with or acknowledge her reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. She said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her and her family. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council did not properly deal with or acknowledge her reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour. She said the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her and her family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
Mrs X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Anti-social behaviour 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.
For example, they may approach a complaint: as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution, or using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the Act) gave councils new powers to address anti-social behaviour. These include civil injunctions and community protection notices.
Community Trigger The Act also introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to 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 Council’s anti-social behaviour policy The Council’s ASB policy refers to the Act’s definition of 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.
The policy says, “Our staff will take a problem solving approach to managing reports of ASB, and whilst remaining supportive will keep an open minded approach to any investigation which focusses on stopping the problem”.
The Council’s policy says details of how to invoke the Community Trigger are published on its website. The Council’s website provides a link by which complainant’s can request a review of their case.
The Council’s complaints procedure The Council’s complaints procedure sets out the Council’s two stage complaints process. It says at stage one, the Council will assign an appropriate manager to investigate the complaint and provide the complainant with a response within 20 working days.
If a complainant is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they may ask for the complaint to be reconsidered. At stage two, a more senior officer will investigate the complaint and provide a further response within 20 working days.
At both stages, the Council says if the complaint is complex and it needs more time to investigate, it will keep the complainant informed until the matter is concluded.
What happened This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
Mrs X reported noise nuisance from her neighbour to the Council in December 2020.
The Council contacted Mrs X in January 2021 to discuss her complaint with her. It provided Mrs X with diary sheets to record the instances of noise nuisance and gave her a contact number for the Council’s out of hours (OOH) team. The Council told Mrs X to call the OOH team so it could visit her property to witness her reports of disturbance. The Council said it would be in touch with Mrs X once it had received the completed diary sheets.
Mrs X made numerous further complaints of noise nuisance from January to April 2021.
The Council’s OOH team visited Mrs X’s home several times in May 2021. The officers recorded that they could hear some sounds from Mrs X’s neighbour’s property but did not consider this to be noise nuisance.
Mrs X’s complaint In May 2021, Mrs X contacted us as she was unhappy with the Council’s handling of her ASB complaints.
In June 2021, we asked the Council to provide us with a copy of its correspondence with Mrs X regarding its handling of her ASB complaints. The Council told us it had not received a complaint from Mrs X regarding this matter. On 18 June 2021, we asked the Council to consider Mrs X’s complaint through its complaints procedure.
On 24 June 2021, Mrs X met with the Council to discuss her complaints of ASB. The Council apologised for the delay in addressing Mrs X’s concerns and agreed to arrange a multi-agency meeting with its housing department and the Police. Mrs X said the OOH officers who previously visited her had not accurately recorded what they witnessed during their visits. She said the officers had told her they could hear the noise nuisance but did not record this in their reports.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 29 July 2021. It said it did not receive the completed diary sheets but acknowledged Mrs X had made numerous complaints of noise nuisance. The Council acknowledged it did not communicate with Mrs X following receipt of these complaints but said it had subsequently agreed to liaise with the Police and housing department following the meeting in June 2021. The Council also said it had spoken to Mrs X’s neighbour at this time and had issued an advisory notice regarding the noise complaints.
The Council said it considered the noise nuisance had stopped after it had spoken to Mrs X’s neighbour but acknowledged Mrs X was anxious the issue would start again. It said it agreed to install noise recording equipment (NRE) if the noise nuisance resumed. The Council acknowledged its communication with Mrs X was unsatisfactory for the period December 2020 to May 2021 and acknowledged it delayed acting on Mrs X’s reports of ASB as a result. However, it considered its actions from May 2021 were appropriate.
Mrs X continued to make further reports of noise nuisance to the Council during this period.
Mrs X confirmed receipt of the stage one response on 20 August 2021 and said she had only just received it. At about this time, Mrs X told the Council she wished to escalate her complaint to stage two.
The Council installed NRE in Mrs X’s home in August 2021.
The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two on 24 August 2021.
On 8 September 2021, the Council wrote to Mrs X. It said it had reviewed the recordings from the NRE and found no evidence to substantiate Mrs X’s complaints of a noise nuisance. The Council said although the NRE had recorded voices from Mrs X’s neighbour’s property, this was not regular or persistent. The Council said it did not consider the recordings to be evidence of a statutory nuisance but said it would speak to Mrs X’s neighbour as a result of its findings. The Council told Mrs X it had closed its case and advised her that she could seek mediation with her neighbour.
Mrs X reported further incidents of noise nuisance in September 2021 and asked for the NRE to be re-installed.
The Council responded to Mrs X on 18 October 2021. It maintained it had found no evidence to substantiate her complaints of a noise nuisance and/or a statutory noise nuisance and said Mrs X’s case would remain closed. The Council said it required independent evidence to substantiate her complaints for it to consider re-opening the case.
Mrs X reported further incidents of noise nuisance in October 2021. Mrs X asked the Council to provide her with an update on her case as she had reported further incidents of ASB.
The Council responded on 3 November 2021 and re-iterated its response of 18 October 2021. It advised Mrs X to call the Council’s ASB Response Operatives to report any further incidents of noise nuisance so that subject to availability, an officer may visit Mrs X’s home to witness the nuisance.
Mrs X replied on the same day. She said the officers could take up to an hour to arrive and that she did not consider they had reported their findings truthfully when they had previously visited. Mrs X said her solicitor had advised her to record the visits to prove what the officers had said.
On 18 November 2021, the Council wrote to Mrs X to say it would provide its stage two complaint response by 16 December 2021.
Mrs X reported further incidents of noise nuisance in November and December 2021. Officers from the OOH team visited Mrs X’s home during this period but did not record evidence of a noise nuisance.
On 26 December 2021, Mrs X contacted the Council to report a further incident. The Council told Mrs X that officers from the OOH team had concerns about visiting because Mrs X recorded the officer’s conversations. The Council told Mrs X it was seeking clarification from management regarding this matter.
On 3 January 2022, Mrs X asked the Council to review her case via the Community Trigger process.
On 10 January 2022, Mrs X emailed the Council to report a further incident of noise nuisance. She said she had bought recording equipment because the ASB team had stopped her from accessing the OOH team to act as a witness.
The Council provided its stage two complaint response on 11 January 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and agreed with the points made in the stage one response. The Council apologised for the initial delay in dealing with Mrs X’s reports of ASB but said its investigations and actions taken were in line with its procedure.
Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us.
What happened next On 24 January 2022, the Council told Mrs X she could use the ASB response service to obtain independent evidence to substantiate her complaints of ASB. The Council told Mrs X it did not give permission to record its officers while carrying out their duties in her home.
Mrs X attended a Community Trigger meeting on 8 February 2022 to discuss her case. The Community Trigger panel agreed there was evidence of ASB and agreed to re-open Mrs X’s case.
Analysis I have exercised discretion in investigating back to December 2020. This is because Mrs X made her complaint about the Council’s lack of action in June 2021, within 12 months of the start of events.
I have reviewed the information provided by Mrs X together with the evidence provided by the Council. The amount of information available was considerable. In this report I have not made reference to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
The Council’s consideration of Mrs X’s case Mrs X complains the Council did not properly deal with or acknowledge her reports of anti-social behaviour. The Council’s own investigation of this complaint identified delay in the Council’s initial response to Mrs X. I agree with the Council’s findings regarding this matter as there is little evidence of action taken between December 2020 and May 2021. This delay in actioning Mrs X’s reports of ASB for this period is fault.
The Council’s ASB policy says, “When a resident reports an incident of ASB, we will listen and take the report seriously and sensitively.” It also says, “Our staff will take a problem solving approach to managing reports of ASB, and whilst remaining supportive will keep an open minded approach to any investigation which focusses on stopping the problem”.
The Council closed its case regarding Mrs X’s complaints of ASB in September 2021. The Council was entitled to make this decision based on the findings of its investigations at that time. The Council says it cannot pursue legal action in the absence of evidence to substantiate reports of ASB and says it made efforts to take action as part of its investigation. I acknowledge the Council’s comments but also acknowledge Mrs X continued to make additional reports of alleged ASB after the case was closed, and that she asked the Council to investigate further.
The Council told Mrs X in October and November 2021 that it would only re-open her case if she could provide independent evidence to substantiate her reports of ASB. The Council’s ASB policy does not state that complainants are required to provide independent evidence to substantiate reports of ASB before the Council will investigate. I acknowledge the Council did not find evidence of a noise nuisance following the installation of NRE in August/September 2021. However, its decision not to carry out a subsequent investigation based on the findings of its initial investigation is not in line with the Council’s policy to “keep an open minded approach.” This is because although Mrs X continued to report frequent, ongoing instances of ASB, the Council declined to investigate further because it determined the reports were typical of the noise previously experienced. It is noted the Community Trigger panel later decided there was sufficient evidence of ASB to re-open the case. This demonstrates the Council did not maintain an open minded approach to Mrs X’s continued reports of ASB, and this is fault.
In addition, the evidence shows officers from the OOH team were reluctant to visit Mrs X’s property because of the issue regarding Mrs X’s decision to record the visits. I acknowledge the evidence shows some visits did take place while this matter was under review by the Council. However, I am satisfied the evidence shows that whilst this issue was unresolved, Mrs X had difficulty in obtaining independent evidence as requested by the Council.
The Council’s complaint handling We asked the Council to consider Mrs X’s complaint through its complaints procedure on 18 June 2021, as the Council said it had no record of the complaint prior to this. The Council’s stage one response is dated 29 July 2021, although Mrs X says she did not receive it until 20 August 2021.
The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two on 24 August 2021. On 18 November 2021, it apologised to Mrs X for the delay in providing a stage two response and said it would provide this by 16 December 2021. It apologised for the further delay on 14 December 2021 and provided its stage two response on 11 January 2022.
I acknowledge the Council’s explanation that the delay in providing its complaint response was due to circumstances outside its control. However, the Council’s complaints policy states it will provide a response within 20 working days or will keep the complainant informed until the matter is concluded. There is evidence of delay at both stages of the complaints process. Whilst the Council informed Mrs X it was delayed in providing its stage two response, it did not do so until considerably later than 20 working days. The delays incurred as part of the consideration of Mrs X’s complaint are not in line with the Council’s complaints policy, and I have found this to be fault.
The Community Trigger I acknowledge Mrs X requested a review of her case via the Community Trigger in January 2022, and that as a result of this process, the Council has re-opened its investigation of Mrs X’s ASB complaints. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her about the Community Trigger and that she found out about it from a third party.
I have seen no evidence to indicate the Council made Mrs X aware of the Community Trigger. Given the number of complaints made by Mrs X over a prolonged period, and her dissatisfaction with the way in which the Council managed her case, the Council should have told her about this process. I acknowledge the Council’s website and ASB policy refers to the Community Trigger, but I have seen no correspondence to Mrs X which explains how or when she could request this. Had it done so, Mrs X may have requested a review of her case sooner, potentially resulting in an earlier decision by the Council to re-open its investigation of her complaints. The Council’s failure to tell Mrs X about the Community Trigger is fault.
Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice. Mrs X says the ASB has affected the mental health of her and her family, including her children. She said the noise affects their ability to sleep and she has been prescribed medication by her GP. Mrs X says she is upset as she feels the Council did not believe her when she told it about the ASB’s impact on her family.
Agreed action
To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision: Provide an apology to Mrs X; Make a payment of £300 to Mrs X to recognise the distress and upset caused. This is in line with our published guidance on remedies; Remind staff to adhere to the timescales set out in the Council’s complaints policy.
The Council has also agreed to take the following further action within three months of the final decision: Consider what steps it can take to promote and publicise the Community Trigger to service users who have made complaints of ASB.
The Council is required to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above recommendations.
Final decision
I have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman