Anti-social behaviour Case Review (Community Trigger)

What this guide covers

Many council decisions have a review, appeal, tribunal or adjudication route that is more important than the ordinary complaints procedure. A complaint can address delay, poor communication, failure to follow policy or administrative fault, but it may not be able to overturn the substantive decision. Protect the formal challenge deadline first, then complain about process failures separately where useful.

Use the ASB Case Review when repeated reports have not produced an adequate multi-agency response, and distinguish it from a complaint about one decision.

The points that usually decide the case

• The ASB Case Review, formerly known as the Community Trigger, is a statutory mechanism for reviewing the response to repeated anti-social behaviour complaints where the local threshold is met.
• Local threshold details are published by the relevant area but cannot be set higher than the statutory maximum framework. Government guidance commonly describes three qualifying complaints as the upper threshold.
• A Case Review examines how agencies responded; it is not necessarily a finding that the reported conduct itself is proven.
• Keep incident/report reference numbers, dates, agencies contacted and outcomes because eligibility depends on qualifying reports.
• Use ordinary complaints separately for maladministration in one agency's handling if appropriate.
• Ask for the local review/appeal mechanism if you disagree with a Case Review eligibility or outcome decision.

Common situations

Protect the merits challenge first

If the law provides an appeal, tribunal or adjudication route, use it within the deadline. An ordinary complaint may examine administration but often cannot substitute a different merits decision. Keep paying or complying where the rules require that pending appeal.

Complaint and appeal can address different things

An appeal can challenge the legal or substantive outcome. A complaint can address lost evidence, unreasonable delay, misleading advice, failure to apply policy, poor record-keeping or failure to implement an appeal outcome. Explain which remedy you seek from each route.

Discretion does not mean 'anything goes'

Planning enforcement, ASB action and many other council functions involve judgment. The Ombudsman generally looks for fault in how the decision was reached: relevant evidence ignored, irrelevant factors relied on, policy misapplied, reasons missing or process unfair. It is not a general merits appeal.

Demand a reasoned decision

Ask the council to identify the power or policy used, material evidence, findings of fact and the route to challenge. If the reason changes later, ask for the recorded basis of the change.

The threshold is local, but there are national guardrails

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 created the ASB Case Review, formerly called the Community Trigger. Local areas set their own threshold, but national guidance says it should consider the frequency of complaints, effectiveness of the response and potential harm, and should be no higher than three qualifying complaints. Check the published local procedure because qualifying periods and reporting requirements can differ.

If the threshold is met, the relevant bodies review how the case has been handled and whether further action is available. This is a multi-agency review mechanism, not a guarantee that the reported behaviour will be proved or that a particular enforcement power will be used. The procedure should also include an appeal route about the threshold decision or how the review was carried out.

Prepare the case around previous reports

List each qualifying incident, the agency it was reported to, the reference/date, response and continuing harm. The Case Review is designed for persistent ASB already reported to relevant agencies; it is not a substitute for making the initial report or for an emergency police response.

Evidence to keep

Build the record as you go. The most useful evidence for this topic usually includes:

• decision notice and appeal rights
• policy/scheme/version applied
• application/representation and evidence submitted
• calculation or officer report where relevant
• proof of appeal/review submission
• separate complaint evidence about delay or process

Keep originals and, where a document is later replaced online, retain the version that actually applied to your case. For calls, a contemporaneous note made immediately afterwards is far more useful than trying to reconstruct the conversation months later.

How to put the issue in writing

Use a short issue structure rather than one long narrative. Start with the decision, failure or service request and its reference number. Then number each complaint point. For each point identify the relevant date, the evidence, what you say was wrong, the practical effect and the outcome you want.

If the council has given different explanations, quote each material position with its date and ask it to reconcile them. If a response omits an issue, say “Issue 3 was not answered” and restate only that issue. This produces a record that can be audited at Stage 2 or by an external body without forcing the reader to infer what remains disputed.

When to escalate

Use the statutory review, tribunal or adjudication route capable of changing the decision. A complaint about process can run separately where appropriate; LGSCO jurisdiction may be limited by the availability of an alternative remedy.

Escalation should not become an endless email chain. Once the authority has given a final response, or the relevant procedure is unreasonably stalled, preserve the final position and use the external route that has jurisdiction. Keep any legal limitation or statutory appeal deadline under separate review.

What this route cannot guarantee

A complaint can expose poor administration, require a reasoned response and support a remedy, but it does not guarantee the technical, enforcement or discretionary outcome you prefer. Where an authority has lawful discretion, the key question is usually whether it gathered the relevant evidence, applied the correct framework, gave intelligible reasons and acted without avoidable delay.

Likewise, an Ombudsman recommendation, statutory appeal, civil claim, data-protection complaint and information request perform different jobs. ConsumerWise links them where they overlap but keeps the legal tests separate.