Ms C and Mr H complained that the Council had not answered a complaint they raised after making a report of antisocial behaviour. They said that communication with them was poor, responses were delayed and their request for a home visit was not addressed properly. Ms C and Mr H also said that the Council had not explained why it had decided no action could be taken, despite the Council having taken action in relation to similar antisocial behaviour 8 months earlier.
The Ombudsman found that the Council had not identified or addressed the reasons for the delays in responding to Ms C and Mr H. A home visit was refused with no clear explanation and no attempt was made to clarify their concerns or provide an alternative way for them to submit hard copy evidence. The Council’s approach also seemed to focus more on what Ms C might have been doing, rather than addressing whether there was evidence of antisocial behaviour and whether it met the threshold for the Council to take action. The Council also said that the most recent report would not be considered to be antisocial behaviour, but this seemed inconsistent given that similar issues were addressed in 2021.
The Council agreed to apologise to Ms C and Mr H, provide reassurance that the reasons for the communication delays had been addressed and arrange for a home visit to take place. It also agreed to write to Ms C and Mr H to confirm the outcome of that home visit, with particular reference to the hard copy evidence they have, the Council’s position on what constitutes antisocial behaviour, and what they can expect from the Council in relation to the issues they are reporting or any future incidents. It agreed to complete these actions within 6 weeks.