Case ID - 202016302 [REF/JX/zY/a5/bp/] Dear Christopher, I have today (19/4) had a response from my Council in response to my Stage One Complaint. In their response, they claim that "the information provided does not set out reasons for your dissatisfaction of the ASB" yet in the text of my complaint I stated, " ... this bizarre situation is obviously 'extremely detrimental' to my lifestyle and probably detrimental to my health, yet the Authorities will not attempt to resolve the difficulty." My remark must be considered unequivocal, mustn't it? Isn't the Council being deliberately obtuse, deceptive and evasive, contrary to its duty of care? To provide a little detail of the morass that is available, this is the text of my, concise, Stage One Complaint (notice the reference to abuse, threatening behaviour and an assault): "I rang a number of charities yesterday (7/12/20) with Shelter suggesting I pursue the Council's 'two-stage' complaints procedure before initiating the 'community-trigger'. Accordingly, I can confirm that the service area is 'Anti-Social Behaviour', and that I am concerned with 'Service Delivery'; the conduct of my neighbour, Philip 'Frothy' Bradley, at 157 High Street Lye Stourbridge DY9 8LT has been well-documented as part of ASB case 19914 and is reproduced at http://www.dwaustin.net/dahome2.html (Home Front) . I remain worried about a confrontation similar to that which occurred some weeks ago in which Frothy made his approach (after much threatening behaviour and abuse) which I managed to 'fend-off' before retiring to my apartment; I have succeeded in changing my life-style to avoid further confrontation - essentially leaving early and returning as early as possible, taking extreme care on my return as Frothy may appear at any of two entrances/exits to my suite of apartments or at the door of his own ground floor flat or, indeed, at the door of his friend's flat (at 158); this bizarre situation is obviously 'extremely detrimental' to my lifestyle and probably detrimental to my health, yet the Authorities will not attempt to resolve the difficulty." For ease of reference, I will provide the Council's response, some of which is, in my view, so badly drafted as to be meaningless: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINT WK202110574:  Dear Mr Austin, Further to our email of 26th March.  Your correspondence of 24th March has now been reviewed by Senior Management and a decision has been made that we are unable to investigate this as a Stage 1 complaint as the information provided does not set out reasons for your dissatisfaction of the ASB and the handling of your case and highlights incidents you have reported.    I would advise therefore that WK202110574 has now been amended to a Service Request for incidents that are already in progress/actioned.   In reference to the new incidents you have raised, the ASB team have agreed to open a new case which is currently awaiting allocation to an ASB Officer.   The allocated ASB Officer will be working closely with the Housing Manager to resolve issues and take action accordingly.  In order to log a formal complaint regarding service delivery of a specific team you will need to provide substantive evidence to support your dissatisfaction to enable further investigation. Yours sincerely, JE Complaints Officer ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again for ease of reference, I will reproduce my email of 24th March: Dear J, Re: Ombudsman Enquiry WK202110270 I haven't been able to find this reference within my own documents; I imagine that this refers to Ombudsman reference 36996 with Council references SR-000440347 (Stage One Complaint acknowledgement) and 19914 (Anti-social behaviour). I do not normally use 'bullet points' as they can lead to complications with regard to future formatting and presentation of documents, but I will use 'numbered paragraphs' with the assumption that these will be at least acceptable and noting that the Ombudsman prefers these. 1) A near-comprehensive account of the issue can be found at http://www.dwaustin.net/dahome2.html - 'Home Front' ; files are in plain text or in 'Word' format. 2) This is the text of my complaint made to the Council on 8th December 2020: "I rang a number of charities yesterday (7/12/20) with Shelter suggesting I pursue the Council's 'two-stage' complaints procedure before initiating the 'community-trigger'. Accordingly, I can confirm that the service area is 'Anti-Social Behaviour', and that I am concerned with 'Service Delivery'; the conduct of my neighbour, Philip 'Frothy' Bradley, at 157 High Street Lye Stourbridge DY9 8LT has been well-documented as part of ASB case 19914 and is reproduced at http://www.dwaustin.net/dahome2.html (Home Front) . I remain worried about a confrontation similar to that which occurred some weeks ago in which Frothy made his approach (after much threatening behaviour and abuse) which I managed to 'fend-off' before retiring to my apartment; I have succeeded in changing my life-style to avoid further confrontation - essentially leaving early and returning as early as possible, taking extreme care on my return as Frothy may appear at any of two entrances/exits to my suite of apartments or at the door of his own ground floor flat or, indeed, at the door of his friend's flat (at 158); this bizarre situation is obviously 'extremely detrimental' to my lifestyle and probably detrimental to my health, yet the Authorities will not attempt to resolve the difficulty." 3) Note that the text in Paragraph 2 was submitted to the Ombudsman on 15th March 2021, over 12 weeks since my original complaint through the Council's formal complaints procedure; initially, the Ombudsman considered that my complaint was made 'prematurely', but then retracted - it is currently considering a full investigation. 4) Note that ASB 19914 also involved contact with the Police and involves three characters, all close neighbours, (Philip Bradley of 157 High Street DY9 8LT, Colin Smart of 161 and 'Carole', M Smart's 'guest') and conduct that includes vulgar abuse, threatening behaviour and violent conduct - all highly regrettable as relations were at least 'functional' until this issue emerged. 5) The anti-social behaviour is ongoing with no response from the Council concerning the abuse of the, dying, communal front lawns (images have been provided) by M Bradley's dog, the occasional barking (particularly at those entering the building to service my apartment), and that awful stench making it its way up the stairwell (my stomach's turning as I write!). 6) Carole's apparent drunkenness is one of the major problems here and is ongoing - the most recent report to the Council (15th March) included: "I am dismayed, once more, at the state of the communal landing this lunchtime where there are further food scraps, and tissues, close to the chute ... it is usually "Carole" that waddles across the landing and shovels food off the plate into the chute with much deposited about the landing ... I have previously supplied small bin-bags, if only as a hint, but there's been little improvement and I must halt this generosity owing to the Covid epidemic ... I've been telling myself that I must try to put-up with Carole's tuneless singing, shouting down the stair-well and slamming of doors as the next occupants of 161 may be no better, and just as drunken, but can something be done about this obnoxious anti-social behaviour?" DAustin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A final remark is appropriate here; it seems that the Council's game includes the expectation that I recall and type-out every detail of my conflict with my neighbours - this is unreasonable in itself and, in any event, the details have been sent to the Council on a regular, prompt basis and have been made available online at www.dwaustin.net , at my own expense and with my own efforts.   I'n't this outfit a shocker? DA.