The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was fault by the Council. It took too long to complete a Community Trigger review, and it was not clear in its process or its communications with Mr X. He is disabled and in chronic pain. The Council’s shortcomings caused him distress and frustration. The Council has reviewed its process and policy and has agreed to apologise to Mr X.
The complaint
The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council took too long to complete a community trigger review and failed to keep him informed about this.
Mr X says that as a result he is still suffering from antisocial behaviour (ASB).
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) If we are satisfied with a council’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. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file and policy documents. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken the comments of both parties into account before reaching a final decision.
What was supposed to happen The Community Trigger is a multi-agency case review of reports of ASB which meets the local threshold. The agencies have a duty to complete a review. The aim is to bring these agencies together to take a joint approach to find a solution. A panel will review the case and decide if action is being taken to resolve ASB. The panel can recommend the responsible organisations take specific actions to improve the situation.
The Council’s Community Trigger policy says: a person can request a review if they have made three report of ASB within the previous six months, and those reports were made within one month of the actual event.
the Council can use its discretion to review a case that does not meet that threshold when there is persistent ASB, serious harm or potential for harm, or concern about the adequacy of response to ASB.
within two working days the Council will tell the person if the threshold has been met, advise them of the next steps and the date of the review meeting. The policy sets out timeframes for each of these steps.
the Council will invite partners to a meeting at which the group will decide it appropriate action has been taken and if necessary contribute to a joined up problem-solving approach and agree a way forward to resolve the ASB. The review will take place within ten working days.
the Council will tell the person the outcome of the review and whether it made any recommendations for further action.
if the person is not satisfied with the outcome of the review they can appeal this to the Safer Leeds Chief Officer.
The Ombudsman can consider complaints about administrative fault by councils. We cannot consider complaints about the police.
What happened On 30 March, Mr X asked the Council to activate the Community Trigger due to ASB he was suffering at his home. He is disabled and suffers with chronic pain. He was experiencing abuse, criminal damage late at night, threats of violence, and the impact of toxic smoke.
The Council took until 21 April to decide that the threshold was not met but it would use its discretion to proceed with the review as there was persistent ASB. The Council’s records do not say whether it told Mr X this. The Police and the Council met and decided it needed more information. On 29 April the Council received an update from the Police that the case was still in its infancy and under investigation. The Police said it needed more time to develop a strategy.
The Council next contacted Mr X on 30 July, some four months after his Community Trigger request. It apologised to him for the delays and explained the process. Mr X says he has no recollection of this contact or of some of the emails the Council said it sent him following this.
It is not clear to me when the actual review meeting took place. It appears to have involved the Council and the Police. The note of the meeting says the review considered: that Mr X had made a series of reports starting in November 2020, a month after he had moved into the property. Since then he had reported four incidents of verbal abuse and noise nuisance by his neighbours, as well as damage to property, a communal fence and a grassed area.
Mr X had also reported these people used words regarding sexual orientation and that he believed his physical disability was being targeted, and that these incidents related to his previous address and had followed him to the new address.
He had been offered support regarding his disability.
The review meeting decided: to use noise monitoring equipment in Mr X’s home should the noise begin again; to refer Mr X’s case to the Hate Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (Hate MARAC) which enables the Council to call on specialists in this area; to give Mr X details of the Cleaner Neighbourhood Team to allow him to report burning of rubbish should it recur; and any evidence gathered must be of a quality which can stand up to scrutiny, and the Hate MARAC can review this.
The Council confirmed the Community Trigger Panel had decided his case will be better reviewed by the Hate MARAC as it has specialists in hate crime. It also has an independent chair who has no connection with the reports Mr X has made. In addition, the MARAC can draw on other partners who will have a fresh perspective on the case.
On 19 August, the Council telephoned Mr X to discuss the recommendations. It apologised for the delays. Mr X said he had difficulty using diary sheets and the Council suggested he use a draft email and submit this every two weeks. He refused to have noise equipment installed as he was shielding under COVID-19 recommendations.
Mr X says the Council did not take seriously CCTV footage of his neighbour trespassing on his property while he was using the disabled shower.
Mr X initially agreed to the referral to the Hate MARAC but then withdrew his consent because he did not trust some of the personnel he thought would be involved.
In October, Mr X reported further incidents to the Council. He emailed it to ask what was happening with the Community Trigger review. The Council explained that he had refused the recommendation and there was no further action. Mr X agreed to the referral to the Hate MARAC provided that he had full details of who would attend and when, and that he could dispute its recommendations if needed.
The Council added Mr X’s further reports and a statement from him to the referral and in January 2022, the Hate MARAC considered the case. It decided that it had no further recommendations. The Police would investigate the current reports of hate crime.
In response to my draft statement, Mr X said that the Council had in December 2020 asked him to complete diary sheets of the ASB. He had told the Council that he was worried about retaliation. In November 2021, the Council told him that his neighbour had alleged that Mr X had made malicious complaints against him. The Council said it would investigate this and if the allegation was substantiated it could result in him losing the tenancy of his disabled adapted home. The Council investigated the allegation and decided to close the case. Mr X is concerned that this means that he cannot make complaints about his neighbour, and that the Council has effectively silenced him.
Mr X says the Police is investigating ongoing incidents.
Was there fault by the Council causing Mr X an injustice?
Mr X says the Council did not consider his footage of a trespass incident and did not take this seriously. I cannot tell how the Council considered this footage, but it is unlikely that it would have altered the outcome. The Community Trigger Panel is likely to have still concluded that it refer the case to the Hate MARAC.
The Council has acknowledged that it took too long to complete the review, and it was not clear in how it managed the process or how it communicated with Mr X. The review should be competed in good time, but the Council effectively took from the end of March to the end of July to have any meaningful contact with Mr X. It did not complete the review until mid-August, some 20 weeks after Mr X had first made his Community Trigger request.
The Council’s delay caused Mr X distress and frustration, particularly as he lives with a disability and chronic pain as well as other ongoing health issues, and that the ASB was continuing. This means that the delays and lack of clear communication would have been especially taxing on Mr X.
The Council has apologised verbally to Mr X, but has offered to apologise in writing to him too. The Council has also reviewed its processes in light of Mr X’s complaint so that these delays and communication problems do not recur. The Police will continue to deal with further incidents of hate crime. This is a suitable remedy for the distress caused.
I appreciate that it is worrying for Mr X that he was accused of making malicious complaints. However, it was his neighbour that accused him of this and not the Council. The Council’s approach was correct, when it told him about the complaint and the possible ramification. It investigated and closed the complaint without further action.
Agreed Action
The Council will within one month of the date of this decision show the Ombudsman it has apologised to Mr X in writing for the distress it caused him.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation. The Council’s apology and policy review is a suitable remedy for the delay caused by the Council.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman