Summary: The Council gave Mr A appropriate housing advice and assistance and responded appropriately to his reports of noise nuisance. There was no discrimination against Mr A and he received appropriate support from social work staff. We do not uphold Mr A’s complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr A complains Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council):
1. failed to deal with noise nuisance from people and traffic outside his flat
2. did not do enough to help him find suitable alternative accommodation
3. discriminated against him on the basis of his disability
4. failed to give him effective social work assistance.

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. 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)
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr A’s complaint to us, the Council’s response to his complaint and documents described below. A colleague discussed Mr A’s complaint with him. Both parties received a draft of this statement and I took comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr A has mental health problems. At the time of the incidents leading up to his complaint, Mr A lived in supported housing owned and managed by a housing association. He has recently moved to a private rented property. Mr A was offered three hours of support through a specialist mental health care provider linked to the supported housing. This support stopped at Mr A’s request.
6. The Council’s environmental health records showed Mr A reported problems with external noise from the street (like traffic and people leaving bars) in December 2017. An officer from the environmental health team visited with the landlord in January 2018. The officer noted street noise was audible, but not loud. He advised that it was not reasonable to make the landlord provide sound insulation and the current provisions were satisfactory. The environmental health team took no further action, explaining in a letter to Mr A that general noise from outside could not be controlled by the Council using any of its powers under the Environmental Protection Act.
7. Minutes of a meeting with professionals and Mr A in February 2018 showed the landlord agreed to help change round the rooms so Mr A’s bedroom would be at the back. Mr A did not want to go ahead with this.
8. The Council’s housing options records showed Mr A had particular preferences about the type of properties he was willing to accept. The Council told me Mr A’s landlord offered Mr A two different properties, which Mr A said were not suitable.
9. Minutes of a meeting which Mr A attended with professionals in March 2019 indicate he would not accept housing in Wigan and wanted a property in the countryside. The care provider’s worker said Mr A always found a reason to refuse any property offered to him. Mr A said this was discriminatory. Officers advised Mr A it would be unlikely another council would offer him social housing as he had no local connection. Officers also advised Mr A against making himself deliberately homeless because he would not likely be rehoused. The Council referred Mr A to another local authority at his request and also to two additional councils and to another social housing provider which offered him a property out of the area. Unfortunately, the property needed major repairs and so the offer fell through. Emails indicated Mr A asked to be removed from the social housing provider’s waiting list. The case notes show officers tried to persuade Mr A to stay on the list, but this was not successful.
10. Mr A has a specialist mental health social worker. The case notes indicate she made regular contacts with other professionals on behalf of Mr A and also had regular contact with him, responding to his frequent emails, contacting other councils about housing and helping him make applications for housing. The records also show the social worker helped Mr A arrange medical appointments.
11. Mr A also has had two key workers, who supported him with practical tasks around the home, organised his correspondence and responded to his regular texts. The key workers liaised with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about welfare benefits and accompanied Mr A to an appointment with the DWP. The key workers supported Mr A to look at private rented properties on line and to bid on properties outside Wigan.
12. The Council told me Mr A had no current care and support plan as he had no eligible care needs. The Council also said Mr A had been offered three hours of tenancy support a week by a specialist mental health care provider and this met his needs; but he had refused it. Text messages from Mr A to the care provider between May and July 2018 show Mr A refused their support and asked for no further contact. Contact notes indicate Mr A’s social worker offered other care providers, but Mr A was not willing to pay the charge he would be required to pay towards their cost.
13. The Council did not uphold any of Mr A’s complaints, explaining in detailed complaint responses the attempts it made to support him.
14. The Council told me court proceedings to evict Mr A were halted temporarily. Since starting my investigation, Mr A has moved from supported housing.

Was there fault?

Complaint a: The Council failed to deal with noise nuisance from people and traffic outside his flat

15. I find the Council took appropriate action because the environmental health team visited Mr A to establish whether the noise problem was one that it could use its powers to deal with. As the problem was general external noise, the Council explained it could take no further action. It is the case that the Council cannot use noise nuisance legislation to deal with this type of noise. I do not uphold this complaint.

Complaint b: The Council did not do enough to help Mr A find suitable alternative accommodation

16. I am satisfied officers took appropriate steps to support Mr A to find a new property that would meet his preferences. Their actions include referring him to other councils and housing providers and supporting him to identify private properties. Mr A was not homeless and was suitably housed and so the Council was not legally required to rehouse him. And, he would not accept housing in the Council’s area and so there was only limited things the Council could do to help. I note Mr A has recently moved, but there is no evidence of any failure by the Council to give him appropriate housing advice and assistance.

Complaint c: The Council discriminated against Mr A on the basis of his disability

17. There is no evidence in the case notes or other records of discrimination on the grounds of Mr A’s disability. I do not uphold this complaint.

Complaint d: The Council failed to Mr A effective social work assistance

18. The records show Mr A received extensive support from his social worker and keyworkers including regular calls, in-person support and support with rehousing and liaison with other agencies. I do not uphold this complaint

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Council gave Mr A appropriate housing advice and assistance and responded appropriately to his reports of noise nuisance. There was no discrimination against Mr A and he received appropriate support from social work staff. We do not uphold Mr A’s complaints.
20. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

21. I did not investigate complaints about repairs because we have no power to investigate complaints about housing management issues. Mr A needs to complain to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman