Summary: The Council made decisions about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour without any investigation process. However, the Council moved tenants to new accommodation, which resolved the issues quicker than if it had taken formal action. This removed the impact on the complainant of loud music and intimidating behaviour. The Council will work closely with future tenants, has given a single point of contact for complaints about this property, and will meet the neighbouring residents once the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic are lifted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms B, says the Council is using an unsuitable property as temporary accommodation. Ms B lives next door to the property and has experienced noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour over the last year. When Ms B has raised the issues with the Council, she says it has not taken responsibility, not taken the issues seriously and properly investigated them. Ms B says the Council responded in a derogatory way, for example telling her to ‘get over it’. Ms B says the Council does not follow through on promises it makes, for example saying it would meet with residents, and saying the Local Councillor would help with issues going forward but then not telling the Councillor of the most recent tenant.
2. Ms B says it has been very difficult working at home during the Covid-19 pandemic due to the noise from next door. Ms B’s sleep is interrupted, she feels isolated, exposed, and unsupported by the Council.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s actions regarding dealing with concerns of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by its tenants. The end of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• Information provided by Ms B, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
• The Environmental Protection Act 1990.
• Information on the Council’s website.
• Information provided by a local Councillor during a telephone conversation.
8. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Ms B lives in a terraced property. The Council bought a property adjoining Ms B’s and use it as temporary accommodation. This means the people living at the Council’s property regularly change.
10. Ms B says since the Council took ownership, she has had problems with most of the people that have lived there. Ms B says other residents in the terrace also have concerns, which they raise with her to take forward. Other residents have also directly raised concerns with the Council. The issues Ms B has logged are:
• Noisy children, endlessly crying. Adults shouting aggressively. Noisy parties and singing. Adults using swear words, and directing comments at Ms B.
• Children kicking ball against Ms B’s wall.
• Dog left alone overnight, crying and howling in distress.
• Intimidation by people sitting outside and staring at her and other residents.
• Kicking her property and causing damage, also damage to her fence.
• Rubbish, broken glass and drug paraphernalia around the Council’s property and surrounding area.
• The Council’s tenants using a shared access path in the early hours of the morning, disturbing other residents. One resident said someone tried to access her property in the early hours.
• A neighbour’s car was broken into.
• People sleeping in a car outside the Council’s property.
11. The Council must investigate complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance. For noise to count as a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
• Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• Injure health or be likely to injure health.
12. Anti-social behaviour can cause or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and affects people’s quality of life. The Council works with other agencies, such as the Police, to tackle anti-social behaviour.
13. The Council also has a responsibility as a landlord and can act if the tenant is not considerate to their neighbours and causes anti-social behaviour or breaches a tenancy agreement.
14. The Council’s website on ‘noise’ says it cannot deal with slamming doors, raised voices, and noise from children. The website says it can deal with amplified music within the home. The website says before reporting a problem try to:
• Build a relationship with your neighbour.
• Have a quiet word with your neighbour about the problem.
• If you need to, have another word and explain the impact it is having on you and your family.
• Use the mediation service.
• Talk to the landlord.
15. Ms B explains that she did firstly try and resolve issues by speaking with the tenants or putting a note through the door during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this resulted in a backlash of behaviour towards her that she found intimidating (staring at her, swearing and abusive language directed at her). This has made Ms B nervous to approach future tenants.
16. Many of the issues Ms B raised are issues listed on the Council’s website that it cannot deal with. Concerns about hearing swear words or noisy children playing is considered a clash of lifestyles rather than anti-social behaviour or statutory noise nuisance. The Council did offer to mediate between Ms B and one of the neighbours she complained about. Ms B turned it down as did not feel it would achieve anything. Ms B says it does not resolve the cumulative issues caused by many tenants or resolve the concerns of other neighbours.
17. Ms B raised concerns about amplified music played by one of the tenants, which is something the Council can deal with.
18. Levels of noise vary along with people’s perception of its severity; some people are more sensitive than others. There is no simple definition or measurement to show when noise crosses the threshold for action and becomes a statutory nuisance. This is down to the professional opinion of trained environmental health officers. To establish this a council would usually ask the complainant to keep a log of the nuisance, officers might visit to try and witness the noise occurring, and they might install recording equipment. It is not simply a case of considering the loudness of the noise, but also factors such as the time of day, the duration of the disturbance, the frequency and the character of the noise (for example a one-off loud bang, or a constant ‘thud thud’ sound).
19. The Council says “when exercising its powers, action taken by the Council must be proportionate and reasonable. The ultimate sanction would be to seek possession of the property but to do so the Council would need to evidence that the occupant had deliberately taken a course of action that warranted the ending of the occupation. Alternative action in relation to noise nuisance would also be a consideration and this would also require that the benchmark for what constitutes a statutory nuisance as set out in statute and case law had been reached and evidenced.”
20. There is no evidence the Council followed any investigation process to establish whether there was a statutory noise nuisance in relation to the loud music Ms B complained about. The Council spoke with the tenant and decided it was an isolated incident, and that singing loudly to karaoke at 6.30pm was not an unreasonable time of day. The Council took no further action.
21. It was not an isolated incident as Ms B reported loud partying three days later. The Council decided the time of the incident (6.30pm) and the nature of the complaint did not amount to a statutory noise nuisance. Ms B made another complaint about loud music the next day. Although the Council did not accept the noise was a statutory nuisance it moved the tenant which resolved the situation.
22. The Council says it considered each instance on its own merits, but never found there was a statutory nuisance. At times, the Council reminded the tenants to be mindful of their neighbours but did not consider further action was necessary or proportionate. The Council fixed the render on Ms B’s wall which she said broke off due to Council tenant’s kicking it. The Council says it repaired this as a gesture of goodwill. Ms B comments the Council never considered the anti-social behaviour element of her feeling intimidated by people standing and kicking her wall.
23. The Council considers Ms B and the other residents are particularly sensitive to noise. The Council bases this on the number of complaints about this one property, compared to the number of complaints about other properties it owns and rents out. However, the Council does not comment on whether there is a direct comparison to those other properties. This particular property is in a quiet rural setting, whereas many of its other properties may be in busy parts of towns. Your surroundings have a bearing on how you hear noise, for example the level of background noise to soften other sounds.
24. The Council says “In managing the stock of temporary accommodation, a balance might need to be struck between enabling neighbours the quiet enjoyment of their homes and assisting households we have a duty to help with housing, many of whom are vulnerable or have recently experienced traumatic events such as domestic abuse.” The Council says it often brought tenancies at the property to an end quicker than it would have done, to remove the clash of lifestyle between Ms B and the tenant. Ms B does not believe this is the case, and says she was told the tenants were due to move on anyway.
25. The Council says “it did take [Ms B’s] concerns seriously, acted in a way that any reasonable local housing authority would but, having reviewed the evidence, concluded the claims of nuisance and anti-social behaviour were either unsubstantiated or did not cross the threshold that would enable punitive action to be taken against the occupants of [the property].”
26. The Council has offered to visit Ms B and the other residents but has not yet arranged this because of travel and visiting restrictions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
27. The Council met with the local Councillor to discuss the residents’ concerns and agreed a set of actions. Ms B asked the Council what these actions were, the Council did not disclose the information as it is confidential between the parties at the meeting. The Council says it contacted the local Councillor for consent to disclose the information, but never received the consent. The Councillor could not recall this request, but says that does not mean she did not receive it.
28. The Council confirms one of the agreed actions was to let the Councillor know before a new tenant was moving in. The case Ms B refers to where the Council did not tell the Councillor in advance was because it was an emergency where the Council needed to move fast to house the tenant. The Council told the Councillor the next working day and says it has followed the agreed procedure in the subsequent lettings. The Councillor confirms this.
29. The Council has provided Ms B and the residents with a single point of contact for raising concerns about tenants’ behaviour at its property.
30. Ms B says a Council officer spoke to her on the telephone in a derogatory way, the officer’s recollection of the telephone conversation differs.

Is there fault by the Council causing injustice to the complainant?

31. It is very common for people living in terraced houses to suffer with neighbour noise, it is an inevitable part of living near others. It is unpleasant to hear foul language and disrupting to hear shouting or noisy children. But none of this is a statutory noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour, this is people enjoying their home without intending to disrupt. Much of the issues Ms B raised were not something the Council could act on.
32. That is not to take away the significant impact on Ms B’s ability to concentrate on her work, enjoy her home, and get sufficient sleep. It has not been a pleasant period for Ms B.
33. Ms B raised concerns about loud music from one tenant, which is something the Council should investigate. The Council made its decision there was no statutory nuisance without carrying out any proper investigation. The Council did not ask Ms B to log the noise so it could establish the frequency, duration, or time of day, and did not witness the noise to establish the loudness. I find this is fault by the Council. However, there was a limited impact on Ms B as the Council spoke with the tenant to try and informally resolve the issue. When the noise continued over a few days the Council says it decided to move the tenant. Whether the Council moved the tenant because of Ms B’s complaints of loud noise, or because it had found more suitable temporary or permanent accommodation anyway, it resolved Ms B’s issues quicker than if it had followed the correct process to investigate noise nuisance. If the Council had carried out an investigation and taken any formal action for statutory noise nuisance it would have taken much longer than a week to resolve the noise issues.
34. There is no evidence of any investigation into Ms B’s allegations of anti-social behaviour, such as swearing directly at her or intimidating her by sitting outside and staring at her or kicking her wall. This is fault as I would expect action to establish whether there was an anti-social behaviour nuisance, such as asking Ms B to keep a log of the behaviour. The Council explains at that time it had to prioritise its service to dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic and there was a moratorium on evicting households. The Council contacted one tenant about Ms B’s concerns of banging noises, but it was the tenant packing to leave. The Council offered mediation between Ms B and the tenants she says were intimidating her, this was rejected so the Council says it moved the tenants out to alternative accommodation. Although the Council did not formally investigate and establish anti-social behaviour, it moved these tenants which would resolve the situation more quickly. Whether the move was because of Ms B’s concerns or was due to happen anyway, it removed the nuisance to Ms B.
35. The Council fixed damage to Ms B’s wall as a gesture of goodwill. Ms B paid privately to fix damage to her fence caused by a tenant cutting the grass. This damage was not caused by fault of the Council. The remedy would be a private action between Ms B and the person who caused the damage, but that is likely to be unrealistic to pursue.
36. As the property is used as temporary accommodation the tenants frequently change. Ms B and the other residents must start the process of complaining again if the new tenant causes problems. There is also an impact on residents being more wary to raise issues with the new neighbour if they have had problems with previous neighbours and suffered a bad reaction when addressing it with them, as has been the case for Ms B. The residents also constantly live with uncertainty about who will move in next and what they will be like. This is of course true of any tenanted property, but the Council should be mindful to it when dealing with the residents and this property has a higher turnover.
37. The Council is right to advise Ms B to try and resolve issues directly with the tenants in the first instance. The Council has offered mediation between Ms B and one of the tenants to try and help resolve issues, and mediation will be available for any future issues for Ms B and other neighbours should they wish. Although the residents suffer the cumulative effect of constant change, each new tenancy is a new case and mediation between the parties would have to start afresh. It might feel draining for the residents but should be a positive step for potential change with their new neighbours. Ms B feels she cannot speak directly to new residents for fear of retaliation, and this is understandable. But it is not fault of the Council to suggest this as a first course of action or to suggest mediation further down the line.
38. The Council acknowledges the residents’ difficulties and has given one point of contact for residents to raise concerns. It has also offered to meet with the residents. The local Councillor has acted as a conduit between the Council and the residents to share information. The Council says it will provide close management and support to its tenants. This is all good practice by the Council. Unfortunately, the Council has not been able to meet the residents because of the Covid-19 pandemic, but that offer remains on the table.
39. Regarding the conversation between Ms B and a Council officer, I can find no fault as both parties have differing versions of events and there is no supporting evidence.
40. I find no fault in the Council failing to tell the Councillor in advance on one occasion about a new tenant. The Council has explained the reasons for this, and I am satisfied the Council told the Councillor at the earliest opportunity.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. This is on the basis there has been some fault in how the Council reached its decisions about statutory noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, but that fault did not affect the outcome. The Council moved the tenants, which was a quicker resolution than a formal investigation and actions such as an abatement notice regarding noise.
42. I am satisfied the Council has actions in place to improve the situation moving forward. The Council should consider any complaints on their own merits, and properly investigate any concerns that are within its remit to do so. It should establish and evidence any statutory noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour and take appropriate action in response. It should properly communicate with the complainant.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

43. I did not investigate the use of the property as temporary accommodation. Whether the property is suitable in terms of size, location and affordability is an issue that affects the tenants rather than Ms B. The individual tenants can raise their own complaints if they have an issue with the suitability.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman