Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s refusal to deal with her complaints about her neighbour’s anti-social behaviour. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her requests. And we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council refuses to take action against her neighbour for anti-social behaviour. She says this has devastating effects on her family’s lifestyle.
2. She wants the Council to issue an injunction against her neighbour for anti-social behaviour. And she wants compensation for financial loss and help to move to a more suitable property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Miss X and the Council. She commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced changes to the way local authorities respond to anti-social behaviour (ASB). The changes include the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) case reviews, or the ‘community trigger'. These give victims of ASB the right to ask a review of how local agencies have responded to previous ASB complaints and consider what further action might be taken where the behaviour persists.

What happened

6. In March, Miss X applied to the Council for a community trigger review on anti-social behaviour where she lives. Her complaint mainly concerned smoking in communal areas which she says allows smoke to enter her home. She also raised concerns about noise and drug use in a neighbouring flat.
7. The Council wrote to her saying the police have confirmed there is no evidence of drug taking or suspicion that drugs are being used in her neighbour’s home. The Council’s environmental health team advised there was no evidence to support a continued investigation into her complaint. Miss X asked for a review of the Council’s response.
8. In June, the Council responded to Miss X’s request for a review. It says it considered the original information plus information gained from officer visits to her home. It confirmed a housing officer visited her home in February and reported there was no strong smell of smoke in her home. However, the officer said he would recommend to the housing association that no smoking signs be replaced where appropriate. The officer also advised another officer would contact her to discuss the balance between airing her home, heating and preventing smell from entering.
9. The council also says she had previously been advised to keep diary sheets for complaints about noise. And it advised she needs to contact her housing association to discuss moving to another property. It also provided links to webpages with information on how to apply for a different rental property.
10. Miss X asked the Council what priority she would get on the housing register. And she says there are lots of cigarette stubs around her neighbour’s flat which she says is proof of the anti-social behaviour.
11. The Council told Miss X there was no statutory nuisance regarding her complaint about smoke. And it provided the weblinks to the housing service again.

Assessment

12. The Ombudsman has no power to question the merit of any decision made by the Council which has not been affected by administrative fault. He appreciates that people will have different views about decisions, but decision making is the function of the Council officers and members, not the Ombudsman. If a council has followed the correct procedures, taken all relevant matters into consideration, and come to a decision that takes these facts into account the Ombudsman cannot question the decision.

13. The Council considered Miss X’s request for a community trigger. It says it has investigated her complaint about anti-social behaviour, mainly smoke. It says officers have visited her home several times and says it cannot confirm there is a statutory nuisance. When deciding if there is a statutory nuisance, officers must take ‘reasonable use’ into consideration. The smoke arises from smoking, rather than bonfires or other burning, and the law considers it is reasonable that people can smoke in their own home. Cigarette smoking is therefore not a matter than can be investigated under the Statutory Nuisance regime.
14. A senior officer reviewed the original response to her request. The Council wrote to her with the outcome of the review. I have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s request for a community trigger and subsequent review.
15. The Council team has told Ms X it cannot take any action against her neighbours for smoking outside her home.
16. I understand that Miss X wants the Council to issue an injunction against her neighbours, compensate her financially and help her move to a different property. The Ombudsman cannot achieve this for her.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are have not seen any evidence of fault in the way the Council consider her requests. Nor can we achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman