Summary: Mr A complained the Council did not deal with his many complaints about his neighbour’s behaviour appropriately. We find fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr A’s reports. This fault did not, however, cause him injustice. The Council has agreed to remind officers to refer complainants to its community trigger process whenever an individual is unhappy with its decision about anti-social behaviour.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains about how the Council dealt with his Anti-Social Behaviour reports about his neighbour. Mr A says he reported several incidents of loud noise or intimidating behaviour to the Council, and the Council did not address the issues properly. Mr A says the neighbour’s behaviour affected his mental wellbeing. Mr A is seeking more information from the Council about the steps it took.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not considered any aspect of the complaint about the way the Council dealt with their tenant in its role of landlord, as this is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr A’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• considered the information Mr A and the Council provided to us; and
• considered the relevant law and policy to the complaint.
8. Mr A and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

The Law and Council Policy

Statutory noise nuisance

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential statutory nuisances. A nuisance is defined as something which unreasonably interferes with someone else's enjoyment of their home or garden. Noise and fumes can be statutory nuisances.
10. For a council to consider something a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. Under the EPA, a council must take 'all reasonable steps' to investigate complaints about potential statutory nuisances.
12. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer, or EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
13. Once the evidence gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

14. The 2014 Act gives the Council powers to tackle anti-social behaviour which include the power to issue community protection notices, and the power to apply to the courts for a civil injunction.
15. The Act also allows for a person complaining of anti-social behaviour to request a review of how the Council dealt with the complaint.
16. ASB can take many different forms and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation. They may approach a complaint as:
• an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
17. The Community Trigger process allows for a review of the case where a locally determined threshold is met. It is a means of giving victims and communities a say in how antisocial behaviour is addressed. It is intended as a safety net for those who believe they have not had a satisfactory response to their complaint about ASB. (Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Sections 104 and 105).

The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy

18. The Council’s ASB policy says its approach to ASB will be based on prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation. The policy sets out the ways in which the Council will aim to achieve this.
19. About eviction, the policy says the Council will seek to evict a tenant as a last resort in cases of severe or persistent ASB, where support has been refused or behaviour has not changed.
20. The policy also states that where victims of ASB are dissatisfied with the Council’s response in handling their report, they may be able to invoke the “Community Trigger”, depending on the frequency of the incidents. This means an inter-agency ASB Case Review is held, and gives victims and/or communities the right to prompt a re-examination of the case.

Back to top

What I found

21. Mr A contacted a Council Housing Officer in August 2022, shortly after a new neighbour (Ms B) moved into the Council property next door to his home. He was unhappy with the levels of TV noise he could hear through the adjoining wall.
22. The Council met with Mr A and agreed to speak with Ms B about the issues raised. The Housing Officer called and spoke with Ms B and arranged to meet with her after their annual leave.
23. Mr A continued to make complaints about noise throughout August 2022. The Council asked him to complete diary sheets detailing the instances. It also explained that evidence of the sound levels would be required, and asked whether Mr A would allow noise recording equipment to be installed.
24. The Council visited Ms B and discussed Mr A’s concerns with her. It checked the volume she was listening to her TV at. The Officer confirmed that it could be heard in Mr A’s home even when played at a reasonable volume.
25. The Officer asked Ms B to consider the disturbance this was causing and suggested the Council may consider installing soundproofing as the walls seemed particularly thin. The Officer explained that he would need records of the sound level to progress the noise complaints.
26. There was a delay in installing noise monitoring equipment (NME) as Mr A was worried that this may antagonise his neighbour. When Mr A agreed to allow the equipment to be installed, the Council did so within three weeks.
27. Once it had the NME recordings, the Council reviewed the information it had and explained to Mr A that it was not enough to be considered a statutory nuisance.
28. I have seen the Council responded to Mr A’s numerous reports without delay throughout the issue. It sent two written noise warning letters to Ms B, made several calls to discuss the reports with her, made site visits and seem to have been actively trying to resolve the issues between the neighbours.
29. Mr A also reported loud and aggressive arguments and raised concerns about Ms B’s children. Although the Council could not provide Mr A with details about the steps it took, I am satisfied that its actions here were appropriate.
30. The Council told Mr A it had sent noise warning letters to Ms B, and it had informed Social Services. It confirmed it issued a Community Protection Warning to her partner. The Council also let Mr A know that it was taking steps to try to reach a long-term resolution to the problem.

Analysis

31. It is clear the Council considered a range of approaches, including using its powers as a social landlord to request Ms B change her behaviour. It also acted to resolve the matter by eventually arranging Ms B’s move from the property, outside of any process available to it through an anti-social behaviour or breach of tenancy route as Mr A was requesting.
32. The Council cannot provide all of the information to Mr A that he has requested as it has a duty to protect Ms B’s confidentiality. The Council is not at fault for following data protection law by not sharing information Mr A would like.
33. However, Mr A made it clear several times that he was not satisfied with the Council’s approach. The Council told Mr A he could report the noise to Environmental Health via its website, however it did not direct him to the community trigger.
34. Mr A complained to the Council, and in its stage two response, the Council said it should have provided Mr A with a link to where he could request a community trigger on its website. It is fault in the Council’s service that it did not at least refer Mr A to the process when he complained about the Council’s ASB review results.
35. The stage two response also said the Council had not addressed the sound levels within Mr A’s complaint. I note however that it was made clear to Mr A the NME recorded the sounds from Ms B’s home and that having listened to them, the Council Officer did not consider this amounted to statutory nuisance.
36. Lastly, the stage two response accepted the Council had not sent this within its published timeframes. The Council apologised for this and provided an explanation.

Fault and injustice

37. I have found no fault in the way the Council has dealt with the noise complaints. It has responded to Mr A’s extensive correspondence fully and appropriately. It has used its full range of powers to consider the complaints and to provide solutions where possible.
38. When addressing Mr A’s noise complaints, the Council considered it as a potential statutory noise nuisance and ASB. This is a correct approach, as explained earlier in this decision.
39. When looking at the ASB issues, I found the Council has failed to refer Mr A to the community trigger process. This is fault. However, on the balance of probabilities, if the Council had referred Mr A to this process, he would not have achieved a significant result. This is because the Council was looking into ways that Ms B could be relocated. I consider it most likely that this process would have come into play following the second written warning.
40. I do not consider that referring Mr A to the community trigger process would have led to a more favourable outcome than the Council achieved here. There is no evidence that Ms B could be evicted on the evidence the Council had, nor that she would have been found guilty of a statutory nuisance by a court. The anti-social behaviour officer was instrumental in Ms B eventually moving to another home, thereby resolving the matter for Mr A. Ms B moved out of the property five months after the NME recordings had been received and reviewed. It is on this basis that I do not consider Mr A has been caused an injustice.

Agreed Action

41. To remedy the fault identified, the Council agrees to remind all staff who deal with reports of anti-social behaviour of when complainants should be told of the community trigger process. This should be done in writing, and within one month of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find there is fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr A’s reports, but this fault has not caused an injustice. The Council agrees to put training in place to remind staff dealing with anti-social behaviour reports when complainants should be informed of the community trigger process.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman