Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with his complaints of anti-social behaviour causing distress to his family. Mr X is a council tenant and the neighbour is a private tenant meaning the Council has different powers to take action. The Council has taken action in response to Mr X’s reports but has not found enough evidence to take formal action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with his complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Mr X says his family is scared and feels the Council is treating him unfairly.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. This complaint is concerned only with the Council’s actions in respect of the complaints reported to it by Mr X about ASB by the neighbour. Paragraph 27 below explains the matters I am unable to investigate.

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. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X is a council tenant. His next door neighbour rents the property from a private landlord. The information provided shows both Mr X and his neighbour have made complaints of ASB against each other.
8. On 26 September the Council sent Mr X an advice letter. The letter stated it had received complaints about shining a light into another property at unreasonable hours. The letter said Mr X may be in breach of his tenancy. It also explained how it would deal with any further complaints.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X again on 10 October sending a warning letter. This provided more details of the complaints received. It stated that on 23 September people entered his back garden and shone a light at the neighbour’s property four times between 12:53 and 2:27 am. It also said Mr X had engaged in shouting and swearing at a council employee. The letter said the behaviour had been deemed as serious. It said it had viewed CCTV of the incidents. It said the actions should stop immediately and his tenancy may be at risk if the nuisance behaviour continues.
10. Mr X telephoned the Council on 10 October complaining the neighbour had made another child bully his daughter. The Council contacted the school. The teacher said she was not aware of any bullying but arrangements had been made for the neighbours’ children to attend at different times due to arguments between the families.
11. Mr X emailed the Council the same day saying he had taken advice about the CCTV camera pointing over his property and recording his movements. He said this was a breach of his human rights. He asked for the case to be reviewed by a senior officer before he took legal action. He denied he had been shining torches into the neighbour’s property.
12. Mr X’s partner, Ms Y, made a report of ASB by the neighbour against them on 21 October. She reported intimidation, harassment, bullying of a child, criminal damage and noise. Ms Y made further reports on 22 October. She said she was harassed by a man she believes to be the brother of her neighbour. On 23 October an ASB officer made enquiries with the police who advised they had attended Ms Y and Mr X’s property.
13. The Council says the neighbour’s CCTV cameras were checked by the police who found no problems with the placement.
14. The Council’s ASB officer telephoned Ms Y on 28 October. She said a visitor to the neighbour’s property had thrown a dog poo bag into their garden. The Council explained to the difficulties it had taking action because the neighbour is not a council tenant and her reports concerned the actions of a visitor and not always the neighbour himself. It also said the photo of the dog poo bag did not show who had thrown it. The Council said it could send an ASB advice letter but would need a significant amount of proof to take other action such as issuing a community protection notice.
15. The officer provided information about how Ms Y could protect herself and advised she would need to speak to her housing officer if thinking of installing CCTV. Ms Y subsequently sent the Council pictures of the dog poo bag. The Council logged the photos and closed the case. It is noted that Ms Y was pursuing the matter as harassment by the visitor not the neighbour.
16. The Council met with the police beat officers on 1 November. The information provided about this meeting shows that both Mr X and his neighbour continued to raise issues about the other party. The police reported it did not have sufficient evidence to issue a harassment warning to Mr X’s neighbour.
17. The next report to the Council was by Ms Y in May about the neighbour throwing sand and cement over the fence. Two days later Ms Y reported an incident with the neighbours at the chip shop. Police officers were in the area at the time and the Council reviewed their recordings. It noted that all parties were shouting at each other and that Ms Y was heard using offensive language.
18. Mr X made further reports to the Council in June and July about the behaviour of the neighbours. The Council also received counter allegations from the neighbours about Mr X's behaviour. The Council is considering setting up acceptable behaviour contracts (ABC) with Mr X and his neighbour. The Council explained this would be a voluntary agreement and if it was not accepted the Council could look at a community protection warning. The Council also offered assistance to Mr X to complete a form to request a transfer.
19. The information provided by the Council shows this is an ongoing active case.

Analysis

20. Mr X complains the Council has not taken action in response to his reports of ASB by his neighbour. Mr X feels he has been treated unfairly because he was sent a warning letter and told his tenancy could be at risk in response to complaints made by the neighbour against him.
21. I have explained at paragraphs three and 27 that I am unable to consider the actions taken by the Council in its role as a landlord. Complaints about landlord actions are considered by the Housing Ombudsman and I understand that Mr X has made a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
22. I have considered the Council’s actions in response to Mr X’s complaints. The information provided shows neither Mr X or Ms Y contacted the Council until after the warning letter on 10 October. The information provided suggests there had been problems between the parties before this but I cannot criticise the Council for not taking action if reports were not made to it.
23. I am satisfied the Council has taken action in response to the complaints made by Mr X and Ms Y. As well as discussing the issue with Mr X and Ms Y and explaining the limitations because the neighbours are not council tenants, the Council has also taken other action. It has contacted the school and discussed issues with it. It has met with the local police officers and discussed what action it is taking. It reviewed the bodycam footage taken by police officers that attended an incident involving both parties.
24. The case is ongoing. The Council continues to consider the information provided by Mr X and Ms Y. It has offered mediation but the neighbours are not willing to engage in this. It is also considering putting in place an ABC for both Mr X and his neighbour.
25. The Council may not have taken the action Mr X hoped for but I consider it has properly considered the ASB reports and taken action appropriately. It explained the limitations of its actions because the neighbour is not a council tenant and has provided advice and support on how to report matters to the police and to seek a housing transfer.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s reports of ASB by his neighbour.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

27. Mr X is a council tenant and the Council issued him with a warning letter following complaints by his neighbour against him. This is the Council acting as a landlord and complaints about the Council’s actions as a landlord are considered by the Housing Ombudsman. I am unable to consider any part of the complaint where the Council is acting as landlord as it falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman