Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action over noise nuisance and anti-social acts by residents of a young persons’ move on property near her home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council failing to prevent nuisance from the occupants of a nearby property which is used as move-on accommodation for young people. She says she has experienced loud music, abuse and witnessed drink and drug offending over the past two years by different residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mrs X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X lives near a property which is used as a residence for young people moving on from social care. She says she has experienced noise, loud music and personal hate abuse from different residents on occasions since 2017. She complained to the Council and its environmental services officers investigated, visited the property and wrote to the residents. No further complaint was received so the Council closed the case.
5. In 2019 Mrs X complained again to the Council. She raised issues of underage drinking, drug abuse and hate crime against her personally by the residents. This followed a quiet period when the property was empty for six months. The Council contacted the company which owns and manages the property and advised it of the need to control the behaviour of residents. The Council advised Mrs X that any crimes committed against her were matters which the Police would deal with, regardless of the status of the residents.
6. The Council has not received sufficient evidence of noise nuisance for it to be able to serve an abatement notice against a particular individual. The residents of the property have changed over time of the complaints which makes it difficult to pursue any enforcement.
7. The Council does not operate the premises and it is not directly responsible for the behaviour of the residents. It does not consider there has been sufficient evidence to say there is a statutory nuisance but it could do so in future if evidence is available. The criminal incidents reported by Mrs X are a police matter and are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because she has reported them.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman