The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to stop anti-social behaviour from a nearby hotel. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint. There is no evidence of significant fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has failed to stop anti-social behaviour (ASB) and drug use, caused by residents of a nearby hotel. He wanted more Community Safety patrols and for the Council to send him a report about the hotel’s out of hours admission process.
What I have investigated I have looked at how the Council dealt with Mr D’s reports of ASB during May 2021 to August 2022.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) 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 have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I also asked the Council questions and examined its response.
I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered Mr D’s response.
What I found
What happened In July 2021 the Council met with residents to discuss why the hotel was being used as temporary accommodation. It explained how residents could report direct to the hotel and that drug issues should be reported to the Police. A further public meeting in January 2022 reiterated the Council’s need to use the hotel due to the local “housing crisis”. There was a risk assessment in place for out of hours admissions to the hotel and the Council would look into this and produce a report.
At the start of May Mr D complained to the Council about hotel residents causing a disturbance. The Council replied it was liaising with the Police and the hotel. Its Community Safety Wardens (Wardens) would carry out some patrols. The ASB teams had no say in who was placed at the hotel. On 17 May Mr D told the Council about men drinking near his home and alleged someone had been watching children returning home from school. The Council shared the information with the ASB Team and advised Mr D to report any alleged criminal activity to the Police. The Council also told Mr D it did not have the resources to patrol the area as he wanted but it would seek to carry out some patrols at key times. Mr D continued to report incidents. At the end of May into early June patrols were undertaken in the area at the time children returned from school. No ASB was observed.
In June Mrs D reported noise and drug use to the Council. It replied that patrols had been carried out and drug issues should be reported to the Police. In July Mr D told the Council about more incidents allegedly involving drugs. The Council repeated he needed to contact the Police. In August Mr D told the Council about night time noise. The Council confirmed it has passed the information to the hotel and Police. The Council completed its report on out of hours placements at the hotel in August. It sent Mr D a copy of the report in September.
What should have happened The Council uses hotels to provide temporary accommodation to homeless people.
When the Council receives a report about alleged ASB at a hotel providing temporary accommodation the case is allocated to the ASB Team for a Warden to consider. The Warden will assess the allegations, whether they are for the Police (this includes reports about drug use) or initially for the hotel to investigate. The hotel has a code of conduct for residents. If it finds the code has been breached it can issue the resident a warning leading to eviction.
The Council currently has two Wardens to patrol the Borough (outside the city centre). They are deployed in response to reports of ASB based on the alleged severity of incidents and requests from partnership agencies.
The Council can only take enforcement action where it has sufficient evidence of ASB activity by a person.
Was there fault by the Council There is no significant fault by the Council. There was no timeframe in place for when the report would be completed. Once it was complete it took around three weeks to send a copy of its out of hours report to Mr D. I do not see there was a significant delay.
Mr D wants the Council to show how it will end its use of the hotel. There is no fault in this matter. The Council meets regularly with residents to explain why it still using the hotel and what actions are in place to move people into more settled housing. There is no statutory duty on the Council to stop using the hotel, rather it has to meet its legal requirements to house homeless people and its Officers have explained this to attendees at the public meetings.
The Council does have a responsibility to investigate reports of ASB. I am satisfied it has responded to Mr D’s reports reasonably. It explained to Mr D that it cannot investigate allegations of criminal activity. It has also deployed officers to patrol the area at a key time requested by Mr D. Those patrols found no evidence of ASB. The Council has notified Mr D about its limited resources and what it can realistically do to monitor the area. It has also set out reporting procedures to the hotel and Police and sought to discuss concerns at regular public meetings. The Council has not received any complaints about ASB from other residents in the area and has not witnessed any ASB on its patrols. In the absence of any supporting evidence to verify Mr D’s reports the Council is not in a position to take enforcement action.
I appreciate Mr D strongly disagrees with the Council and believes it should do more. However, the Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions taken without fault. In this case the Council has followed its procedures and considered Mr D’s reports. It has explained its position and carried out patrols.
Final decision
I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not looked at issues involving drug use and other alleged criminal activity. Those are matters for the Police, not the Council.
I have not looked at events earlier to May 2021 because the Ombudsman expects a complaint to be made within 12 months of the issue arising.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman