Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns they raised about the actions of a neighbour causing distress and impact on the mental health of Mr X. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains for Mr X the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns they raised in October 2024 about anti-social behaviour and abuse caused by their neighbour Mr Y. Mrs X says Mr Y’s behaviour escalated in April 2025, and he threatened Mr X’s life. This cause Mr X’s mental health to worsen and they were forced to move home. Mrs X says the Council did not take any action until they complained in August 2025. The Council apologised but Mr and Mrs X consider this does not remedy the injustice caused to them.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mrs X complained to us in October 2025, so I have investigated Mrs X’s concerns from October 2024 being 12 months before the complaint to us. I have not investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the Council’s response to their contact in November 2023. This is because the concerns raised are late and it was reasonable to expect Mr and Mrs X to have complained to us before now if they were unhappy about the alleged lack of response from the Council in 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened in this case

8. What follows is a summary of key events. It does not include all the information I reviewed as part of the investigation. I have referred to events in 2023 to provide background to Mrs X’s complaints.

Background events

9. Mr and Mrs X are housing tenants of a borough council in the County Council’s area. They have a young child, Z who has a diagnosis of autism. Mr X has some physical and mental health conditions and Mrs X acts as his carer.
10. Mrs X contacted the Council in November 2023 with concerns about Mr Y’s behaviour. A Council officer contacted Mrs X to discuss her concerns and left a voicemail message as she did not answer the telephone call. There is no record of a further contact from Mrs X.
11. Z’s school made request for support in November 2023 as the child was reported to be frightened by Mr Y’s behaviour. The Council made a referral to the Intensive Early Help team in its Children’s Services who discussed the matter with Mrs X. She identified a need for support with consistent parenting linked to Z’s autism. The Council says the outcome was not based on the issue with the neighbour and the case moved to open access services in January 2024.

Events 2024

12. Mrs X made referral to the Council in May 2024 for support about a driveway to help with Mr X’s mobility issues. This was progressed to a Council Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment in June 2024. The OT recommended steps to the family home, bathing adaptations and a chair/bed for Mr X. The OT completed the assessment in October 2024 noting Mr X reported no concerns with motivation or mood. The Council says Mr X did not mention any issues with Mr Y during the OT assessment.
13. An OT visited Mr X again in October 2024 and recommended a shower adaptation in the bathroom. The Council approved the recommendation in December 2024 and sent it to the borough council to carry out the works. Mr X was reported to be happy with the proposed adaptations, and the Council closed the case. It says it has no record of a report from Mr X about Mr Y in the OT assessment.

Events 2025

14. An OT visited Mr X in February 2025 for an assessment on bed grab rails. The Council closed the case without further action as Mr X already had grab rails in place. The Council says Mr X did not mention issues with Mr Y to the OT.
15. Mrs X contacted Children’s Services in April 2025 about Mr Y and said the family felt unsafe. The Council confirms the Front Door Service in Children’s Services responded by looking into Z’s well-being and signposted the family to appropriate support services for Z’s emotional health. This included School Health and the Family Hub. The Council says its response focused on identifying and addressing Z’s needs rather than on the neighbour dispute itself.
16. Mrs X says Mr Y’s behaviour escalated in April 2025, and he made threats against Mr Y’s life. Mrs X says the borough council arranged an emergency move for them to a different property.
17. In June 2025 a borough council councillor wrote on Mr and Mrs X’s behalf to the Council, borough council, police and local politicians about Mr Y and incidents causing Mr and Mrs X distress. The Council said it had noted the concerns raised and shared these with the appropriate team to deal with. It explained it could not share any information with the councillor but confirmed Mr Y was receiving suitable support.
18. Mr X contacted the Council in June 2025 to discuss equipment and adaptations as he had moved to a different property. The Council arranged for an OT assessment.
19. Mrs X complained to the Council in July 2025 they had made many calls to the Council about anti-social abuse by their neighbour Mr Y. But Adult Social Care Services had failed to respond. Mrs X said Mr X had been struggling with his mental health and had needed to move due to failures by the Council and courts. Mrs X said only the Council’s Children’s Services had responded following a referral from the police about Mr Y’s abuse.
20. An OT carried out an assessment on Mr X in August 2025 and recommended bathroom equipment for him and a review of steps into the garden. Mr X told the OT he was receiving medical help for PTSD due to problems with his former neighbour Mr Y which was why he moved to a new property.
21. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in August 2025. The Council confirmed it had not been aware of Mr X’s issues with Mr Y until August 2025 and after Mr and Mrs X had left their property. So, it could not have been expected to have taken any action while they were at the property.
22. The Council received a referral from Mr X’s crisis recovery worker in September 2025 about his mental health. This mentioned issues with Mr Y as part of the family’s history. An officer contacted Mrs X in September 2025 to discuss any support needs. Mrs X explained about the family having to be rehoused following threats from Mr Y, and the impact onto Mr X’s mental health. Mrs X said she was unhappy with the Council’s complaints and safeguarding process and while Children’s Services were involved Mr and Mrs X were also struggling. The Council agreed to carry out a Child and Family assessment on Mr and Mrs X. The Council says it agreed to the assessment due to concerns about Mr and Mrs X’s mental health and the potential impact onto Z rather than about the neighbour conflict.
23. The Council’s Community Team wrote to Mrs X in September 2025 recognising it had been a difficult time for Mr and Mrs X. The Council accepted an officer should have contacted them again in October 2023 after leaving a message and apologised this had not happened. The Council said if so, it may have been able to assure them it was taking their concerns about Mr Y forward. And perhaps signposted them to services who would have been able to support the family. The Council said it would remind teams of the importance of responding to referrers and apologised for the impact this had on the family.

Council comments on the complaint

24. The Council confirms that Children’s Services have been involved with the family. It accepts incidents involving Mr Y were a recurring feature in the referrals and were described as having a significant emotional impact on the family and particularly Z. However, its records show Children’s Services did not get involved only because of the dispute with Mr Y. The involvement started and continued in response to identified needs based on Z’s emotional well-being. It also looked at parental capacity and wider family circumstances with the neighbour issues forming part of the background information. The Council says this was in line with its duty to assess and respond where a child may need support. So, while neighbour issues were part of the family’s circumstances it was not the main reason for the involvement by Children’s Services.
25. The Council also received a referral from CAMHS in December 2025 about Z’s emotional wellbeing and this did refer to past events with Mr Y. The Children’s Front Door Services assessed the referral and considered it did not meet the threshold for statutory intervention. The Council signposted Mr and Mrs X to community-based support again. The Council says this shows it took a clear overview about whether the situation met a threshold to take action and did not escalate involvement based solely on the neighbour concerns with Mr Y.
26. The Council says if it had been made aware of how issues were affecting Mr X it would have given him advice and information in line with that already provided by Children’s Services. This included signposting the family to other organisations. The Council may have also discussed the option of arranging a Care Needs Assessment to see how it was impacting on Mr X. The Council confirms it would have told Mr and Mrs X to report the issues to the borough council and the police who were copied into the councillor’s email in April 2025. The Council considers this shows other agencies were also aware of issues with Mr Y and Mr and Mrs X would have been in discussions with them. The Council says Mr and Mrs X may consider Adult Social Care did not take any action as a result of their concerns. But it did act on reports about Mr Y and shared information with relevant services.

My assessment

27. The documents provided show that during the OT assessments taking place between October 2024 and October 2025 there were no mentions of issues with Mr Y being reported. So, I cannot conclude there is evidence of fault by the Council. This is because it had no reason to make any referrals to Adult Social Care through the OT service if the issues not reported to them by Mr and Mrs X. The Council documents confirm there were also no referrals to Adult Social Care or reports from Mr and Mrs X on the impact of the neighbour dispute with Mr Y. The Council says it did act on information received about Mr Y and it shared the details with appropriate services.
28. The Council confirms it did take action on referrals made to Children’s Services. But these were mainly based on an assessment of needs of Z and the child’s emotional wellbeing. The Council confirms that while there were references to the actions of Mr Y, it gave the family signposting information to other community-based support that may be able to help them. The fact that the borough council moved them in 2025 shows Mr and Mrs X were in receipt of support from other more appropriate organisations.
29. The Council says that if had been aware of impact on Mr and Mrs X between October 2024 to October 2025 then it is likely it would have given them same signposting information they received from Children’s Services. This was to other options for community-based support. The Council’s assessment in December 2025 which included family’s concerns about Mr Y, did not meet the statutory threshold for intervention by the Council. So, I consider it is likely the outcome would have been the same if Adult Social Care had been made aware any sooner of the concerns Mr and Mrs X raised about the impact on their mental health. Or if the Council had carried out a Care Act assessment any sooner. I appreciate the distress caused to Mr and Mrs X by the situation they have described. However, we cannot prove or establish a causal link between the behaviour of Mr Y, the Council’s response and impact onto Mr X’s mental health. So, I do not consider we can achieve anything more for them through further investigation or that the outcome would have been any different.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman