FAO: Scott Carter, Team Manager ASB, DMBC.
Regarding: Stage One Corporate Complaint - Reference WK202140476 - ASB 19914
Please forward as appropriate.

Scott,

I appreciate the Council has identified at least one person who can cobble together a few words in cogent fashion - thanks for that!

I also appreciate that the Council is, at last, making an attempt to move this hateful issue in a forward direction and that it is prepared to recognise some 'service failures' - but ASB 19914 has been closed! This I cannot accept and must move to have this matter heard at Stage Two.

For ease of reference, I shall respond to each of your points, of 7th February, with enumerated comments in italics - if this emailed response is not sufficient, that is an annoying printed, hard-copy, needs to be sent, do advise; whatever, please acknowledge this message. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in acknowledging and responding to your
complaint, which was originally logged on 24.01.21. Since this date I understand there has been
further dialogue with you in respect of your complaint and in addition we have been
communicating with the Housing Ombudsman (HO).

Initially your email, as dated, was not considered a complaint and more a service request and
therefore it was dealt with and considered in this way at that time. However, subsequent contact
between our Customer Feedback Team, yourself and the HO, has led to it now being taken as a
complaint, and following which I have conducted a review of the case – 19914.

In the interests of transparency, and because I am unable to determine the true nature of your
complaint, I will be assessing whether we have failed to follow our ASB Policy and Procedure
(P&P) only. As you are aware, when we have asked for clarity on your complaint, you have
referred us to your website.
1) I am surprised that you are "unable to determine the true nature of [my] complaint"; my message of 8th December 2020 reads: 
"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." 
No significant attempt has been made to resolve this issue and, in addition to considering this nasty matter at Stage Two, the Council should immediately re-open ASB 19914.

In viewing your website, I have counted 44 separate Hyperlinks, each of which seem to contain
large amounts of information relating to several topics or subjects, and therefore not easy to
determine which part of your website relates to your complaint. For this reason, I will not be
referring to any of the content of your website within my response.
2) Your counting is about right, there are 'about 40' links on my website (www.dwaustin.net) that relate to the 'Home Front' (that is, ASB 19914), but I am baffled as to how you find it is "not easy to determine which part of your website relates to your complaint" - the site is, essentially, an electronic cupboard to which any 'interested party' can refer, with clear sectional divides, and created at my own expense! I must note here that "Sarah's Stitch-Up", detailed on the same page and billed as "the lowest point in the short history of DMBC" (and the ASB Department) also remains without resolution and only yesterday (9th February) I received an updated Enhanced Disclosure Certificate which still carries the relevant conviction, for litter-picking my own High Street! Thanks Duds!

I have now completed a full review of the ASB case file 19914. This has involved me speaking
to the officer responsible for managing and investigating your ASB complaint, in addition to
reviewing the electronic files we have on the matter.

My findings and responses are below: -

07.01.20 – a case was created on our database following a complaint you made to Dudley
Council Plus (DCP). This complaint relates to allegations you made in respect of your neighbour
Mr Bradley, 157 High Street, Lye, DY9 8LT. The allegation states – on 06.01.20 (lunch time)
you were threatened and in addition Mr Bradley used obscene language and allowed
his dogs to urinate and defecate outside your kitchen window.

08.01.20 – I can see that Jill Elwell, who is your single point of contact (SPOC) for Housing
Services, did email you to confirm we were in receipt of your complaint via DCP, and in addition
she further stated that the matter would be allocated to an ASB officer. A further email to you
date 10.01.20 confirmed Jill would remain your SPOC.

• Contact in this instance was made in line with ASB P&P.

22.01.20 – I can see that further information was requested from you and you supplied
additional details around the incident reported to DCP. I can see you state that you do not recall
the precise words used in the incident and that it happened some months ago in Connops Way.
Within this email, I can see you report more recent behaviour involving Mr Bradley, which
occurred on 17.01.20.

30.01.20 – I can see that an ASB officer did speak to Mr Bradley regarding the allegations you
made against him. During this I can see the ASB officer did advise Mr Bradley against any
retaliation and gave him advice around any future conduct towards you.

• I consider this action proportionate and in line with ASB P&P.
3) Yes, a message was received to the effect that M Bradley had been advised regarding his 'future conduct' - but is this true? The evidence suggests that nobody has made a serious attempt to resolve this difficulty - the Council was advised on 5th December 2021: "ASB 19914 - latest round of threatening behaviour ... Frothy approached me in Connops Way (DY9 8UD) this evening (3rd Dec, circa 1730) and began his usual threatening behaviour, claiming that he was “Army trained” and that he would kill me; I suggested those antics were not constructive and that both of us might get hurt."

05.02.20 – I can see an email sent to you advised you of the above intervention taken by the
ASB officer, who further advised that the matter would be reviewed in 2 weeks.

• I do not see whether this review was conducted and therefore can only concede that it
did not take place and for this I apologise on behalf of the service.
31.03.20 – I can see an email from you which contains an allegation of assault, in amongst a
number of your views in respect COVID and dogs.
4) Any observation that The Dog is critical to this issue would, of course, be correct; the Council allows Frothy to keep a dog, with no private or even secluded grounds where it may be toileted - the result is a series of public indecencies, annoyance and even damage to the communal front lawns (a matter still unaddressed). Just how the Council can take this position is again baffling - the Council's published tenancy agreement makes it clear that such pets are a contravention; it is very likely that the Council is adversely influenced by its political leadership (substantially pro-dog) and, whatever, the ASB department might itself be stuffed with cynophiles, giving rise to various 'oversights' regarding dog-issues. Do you like dogs, Scott? Declare your position!

• I do not see whether this email was followed up or not and therefore can only concede
that you received no response to the allegation made. Ultimately, the matter you were
reporting (assault), should have been something you reported to the Police.
Nevertheless, as Service Manager, I would have expected to see communications of
such advice from the ASB officer at that time.

01.09.20 – I can see an email from you containing details of criminal damage to your letterbox,
which you state occurred on 31.08.20.

• I do not see whether this email was followed up or not and therefore can only concede
that you received no response to the allegation made. Ultimately, the matter you were
reporting (Criminal Damage), should have been something you reported to the Police.
Nevertheless, as Service Manager, I would have expected to see communications of
such advice from the ASB officer at that time.
5) I must comment here that no communication has been received, from any agency, regarding the damage to my letter-box, the Council has insisted, quite fairly, that the door to my apartment, for safety reasons, be replaced, but with no communication of late and my seized windows remain unrepaired - how do I effect an escape if Frothy and his associates of ASB 19914 decide to smash my door?

11.09.20 – I can see that the ASB Officer did close our case.
6) As advised above, given the evidence that continues to be ignored, it is lamentable and inexcusable that this case remains closed.

• I see no correspondence with you in respect of this. Standard practice is to make a
complainant aware that their case is being closed, unless there is a justified reason for
not doing so. Having reviewed the file and from speaking to the officer in charge, a
closure letter was not sent, and neither was there a justified reason for not sending. As
Service Manager I would have expected to see a letter of closure from the ASB officer at
that time.

06.07.21 – I can see an email from you containing details of further damage to your letterbox, in
addition to allegations of Carole and Colin of 161 High Street banging on your door, swearing
and being insulting.

• I do not see whether this email was followed up or not and therefore can only concede
that you received no response to the allegations made. I can see your email indicates
that this matter was reported to the Police, however, I see no further information to
indicate action was taken by them as a result of your report. Nevertheless, as Service
Manager, I would have expected the ASB Officer to follow up your email as well as
liaising with the Police.

12.01.22 I can see you contacted DCP to report your neighbour at 161 banging on the door of
another resident.

• I do not see this complaint has been followed up in line with P&P. Ultimately, and in my
professional opinion, I see this as a one-off incident of noise and therefore unless it was
persistent or continuing in nature, no further action would be considered. However,
despite this, you should have been notified of this sooner.
7) Colin Smart, one of three antagonists listed in ASB 19914, aided and abetted by his persistently drunken partner, 'Carole', has, several times, banged on doors within this 'suite of apartments' - this disturbance cannot be described as a "one-off incident"; indeed I cannot recall any communication from the Council regarding the antics of either Colin or Carole, probably influenced by the excessive consumption of alcohol. As a reminder, the suggestion remains that ASB 19914, though concerned, primarily with M Bradley of 157 and his abusive, threatening, violent behaviour, is inspired by these three acting 'in concert'.
As a reminder, this text is extracted from the message sent to the Council on 6th July 2021, also available at www.dwaustin.net:

"ASB 19914 - Incident of 5th July 21. Incident began with Carole (161 High Street) singing and shouting out of the landing window, probably intoxicated, circa 1045am Monday 5th July, audible in my apartment - I asked Carole, politely, if she would desist from singing and shouting out of the window, largely because it sends the wrong message to the community and that that it was disturbing my Monday morning. Later, Carole started banging on the door, with much swearing and insults, and Colin (also of 161 High Street) banged on the door insisting that he was not drunk, that I had "insulted [his] woman" and that he "just wanted to speak to [me]". I suggested that he was talking to me and thus there was no need to open the door and it might lead to another assault. Colin Smart's threats included: "I'm going to bash the door down if you don't open it." Many of Carole's and Colin's comments will be found on the 999 operator's recording. Insults from Colin included the suggestion that I was a "f***ing a***hole", with my counter that I did not indulge in sodomy!"

Conclusion

In my conclusion to this matter, I uphold your complaint and concur with your concerns around
‘poor service delivery’, in the main this appears to centre around poor communication with you. I
see that there have been times where we have not delivered our service in line with P&P and
standards I would like to see as the Service Manager and for this I apologise.

I see that there appears to be a long-standing dispute between yourself and other residents. I
see that some of this dispute, and some of your reports, do not amount to ASB and appear
more in respect of your feelings towards Dogs and/or people who share differing lifestyles.
Unfortunately, as an ASB service we will not interject in a dispute between neighbours,
however, we can offer mediation as a way of resolving such matters.
8) I must contend that the issues with my neighbours "do not amount to ASB" - many of their antics contravene not only tenancy agreements but also statutory provisions; it is true that The Dog forms the focus of many issues, but then, where can civilised man proceed anywhere in this Borough without his person being sniffed by some dog?

In the interests of preventing such communications moving forwards, there are instances where
you appear to elaborate to the extent which is not necessary, for example email dated 06.07.21
06.25 reads -

“Smart and his 'partner' (there has been an implicit concession in this exchange that Carole is
indeed female - rather difficult to ascertain from its rotund appearance)”.
Views such as the above are not necessary, and whilst I take nothing away from your personal
feeling towards others, I would ask that such comments or observations are not necessary for
any evidence you share with the ASB service.
9) I'm surprised that you've picked-out this sentence from my submissions; gender has become a question of preferred identity, and sexuality, I understand, is sometimes difficult to ascertain without a medical examination (or even chromosomal analysis), particularly if the object is obese. Gender can be used as a means of spiteful attack; Sarah's Stitch-Up is one notable example where the innocent male can be entrapped by 'weaponised females' - many of them, it is alleged, are, or were, Council employees!

Moving forwards, I can advise that you case will remain closed. However, should behaviour or
concerns escalate, then please log your concerns initially via DCP. Any complaints will then be
referred through to the ASB service for review and actioned as necessary. As Service Manager,
I will ensure that you are communicated with to avoid repeat of the communication concerns
noted in this response.

Additionally, as indicated above, if you would like to be considered for mediation with your
neighbours, then please make contact via DCP and this can be explored. However, all parties
involved would have to agree for it to progress.
10) ​​​​This does represent some progress, though mediation has been suggested previously - I have made another request for mediation, by email, just now (10th February).

I hope that this response has satisfactorily addressed the concerns you raised, however should
you remain dissatisfied, please contact the Housing Complaints Team, Harbour Buildings,
Waterfront West, Brierley Hill, West Midlands, DY5 1LN within 20 working days of receipt of this
letter, letting us know the reason for your continued dissatisfaction. In order to request a Stage
2 review of your complaint you must be able to show:

• The decision made has been based on a factual error
• There has been an oversight on a significant piece of evidence
• New evidence has been provided to support the original complaint, which was not included
with the original submission

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original message:

From: Hou.CustomerFeedback (Hou.CustomerFeedback@dudley.gov.uk)
Date: 02/08/22 08:39
To: mail@dwaustin.net
Subject: RE: STAGE 1 COMPLAINT WK202140476

Dear Mr. Austin,

Please see copy of your Stage 1 response attached [from Scott Carter, Team Manager, ASB].   A hard copy has been posted to you.
The Housing Ombudsman have been updated accordingly.

Yours sincerely,
Housing Customer Team
Housing Finance - The Customers Team
Housing
Dudley Council
Harbour Buildings, Waterfront West, Brierley Hill, DY5 1LN
01384 812120