The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it investigated claims of anti-social behaviour against Mr X and another member of the public.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council: failed to carry out a thorough investigation into anti-social behaviour claims made against him in 2021; failed to produce an outcome of its 2021 anti-social behaviour investigation; and was biased in its anti-social behaviour investigation, as demonstrated by unprofessional language used by a council officer to describe him, in emails during the time of the investigation.
Mr X said the Council’s actions have caused him distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 a council’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) When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
I considered our Guidance on Remedies .
I considered comments made by Mr X and the Council on a draft decision before making this final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance Anti-social behaviour Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is defined in law 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. (Section 2, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) Whatever the nature of the behaviour being reported, the first thing council officers should generally do is decide whether (if proved) it would amount to ASB. If not, we would expect officers to give the complainant a clear explanation for this.
‘Community Trigger’ and ASB case reviews The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced the ‘Community Trigger’ to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold for review has been met.
If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should review what happened. 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.
We can only consider how a council has acted in an ASB case review. We cannot investigate any contribution made by other relevant bodies, such as the police. Those organisations are not within our jurisdiction.
What happened The Council received a complaint in April 2021 from a member of the public, Person A, regarding Mr X’s CCTV camera on his property. Person A said Mr X was using his CCTV camera to record them.
A few days after receiving the complaint, a Council officer attended Mr X’s home and spoke to Mr X and Person A about the complaint. The officer inspected Mr X’s CCTV camera and decided its use was appropriate and in place to protect Mr X’s vehicle.
Around two weeks after the visit, the Council officer wrote to Mr X and Person A to advise that it would not be escalating the matter any further. Instead the officer gave informal advice to both parties by sending them guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the appropriate use of CCTV.
In June, Person A applied for a review of the ASB case under the Community Trigger. Person A said Mr X was harassing them. Mr X made a counter allegation of harassment against Person A.
In July, the Council reviewed the allegations of harassment made by both parties against the other and examined how it had previously investigated the matter. It also referred both cases to the police for investigation. The police found no evidence of harassment by Mr X or Person A.
The ASB case review was chaired by an officer who had not been involved in the previous ASB investigation.
In August, the Council wrote to Mr X and Person A to say the review concluded there was insufficient evidence of harassment by either party. Instead the Council gave informal advice to Mr X and Person A.
It recommended that neither party should speak to each other, apart from in an emergency, and that they should continue contacting each other via their legal representatives regarding the civil law disputes they had with each other that were ongoing. The Council also offered to refer them to mediation.
Mr X complained to the Council and then to us, because he believed the Council was ‘biased against him’ in its investigation of his allegation against Person A.
Mr X said this was demonstrated by evidence he had found from a Subject Access Request, showing that an officer of the Council had been disparaging in comments about him in emails from 2020.
This officer was mainly involved in managing a separate, earlier complaint made by Mr X regarding a path near his home.
My findings
Complaint 1A) Insufficient investigation into ASB claims The Council promptly attended Mr X’s home and inspected his CCTV camera following Person A’s complaint. It then informed both parties that following its investigation, the matter would be taken no further.
Following Person A’s Community Trigger application, the Council reviewed how it had handled the case again including considering the allegations from both parties. This was the action we would expect to investigate the claims made. The Council was not at fault.
Complaint 1B) No outcome provided following ASB investigation The Council provided a letter explaining its decision regarding the ASB investigation in April 2021. It then wrote to Mr X in August 2021 to inform him of the outcome of the ASB case review. Both of these letters explained the Council’s reasons for not escalating the matter further. These were the steps required by relevant policy and guidance. The Council was not at fault.
Complaint 1C) Bias in the Council’s investigation The Council officer who made comments regarding Mr X in emails from 2020 was not involved in any decision making in the ASB case review of 2021.
Some evidence from this officer was considered during the ASB case review, among other evidence. The review was chaired by someone independent of previous ASB investigations. This is as expected by policy and guidance for such reviews.
The ASB case review reviewed the previous ASB investigation, considered the allegations made by both parties, and came to the same conclusion as the initial ASB investigation. It then made identical recommendations regarding limited contact to both parties.
There is no evidence of bias by the Council during its initial ASB investigation or the ASB case review. The Council was not at fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman