Summary: The Council did not immediately assess some noise recordings which were submitted by Mrs X to a duplicate account. This failing did not cause Mrs X any significant injustice. The Council properly dealt with Mrs X’s other reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to properly deal with anti-social behaviour from people living next door. She says that because of this, she suffered significant distress and had to sell her home.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have considered the action the Council has taken to deal with Mrs X’s complaints of anti-social behaviour. The last section of this statement explains why I have not investigated any matters relating to Mrs X’s neighbour’s tenancy with the Council.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Anti-Social Behaviour

7. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
• conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
8. Councils have duties to investigate anti-social behaviour and powers to take action against people if their behaviour is unacceptable.

Noise Nuisance

9. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that where a complaint of a statutory nuisance is made to a council by a person living within its area, it must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate the complaint.
10. A statutory noise nuisance is much more than annoyance or the fact that noise is audible. For a noise to be a statutory noise nuisance it must be a significant or unreasonable emission of noise that materially interferes with the use and enjoyment of a person's home. Several factors determine whether noise is a statutory noise nuisance, such as the time of day the noise occurs, how loud the noise is and how often it occurs. Council officers have to consider what would be unreasonable for an average person. Some people have an increased sensitivity to noise and this should not be taken into account when determining a nuisance.

Right to Buy

11. The Right to Buy scheme helps eligible council and housing association tenants in England to buy their home with a discount. Some or all of the discount has to be paid back if the house is sold within five years.  

Key events

12. Mrs X bought her house from the Council in 2016 through the Right to Buy scheme.
13. In August 2019, a new Council tenant moved into the house next door.
14. The following month, Mrs X started complaining to the Council about anti-social behaviour from her neighbour. In particular, she complained that there were lots of people in the house shouting and playing loud music.
15. The Council asked Mrs X to complete nuisance diaries. Council officers also visited Mrs X and her neighbour to discuss the complaints. Mrs X’s neighbour made counter allegations against Mrs X.
16. In early October, Mrs X wrote to the Council asking if it would buy back the house from her. The Council said that it would not, and it explained that if she sold the house, she would have to pay back some of the discount she received when she bought it through the Right to Buy scheme.
17. Mrs X then put her house up for sale.
18. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment in Mrs X’s house later that month. It found evidence of excessive noise on one occasion but decided there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a statutory noise nuisance.
19. When officers visited Mrs X in November, she explained how the anti-social behaviour and noise was affecting her mental health. She agreed for a referral to be made to mental health services.
20. Mrs X continued to report anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbour. She also complained about rubbish outside the house which she was worried could put off any potential buyers.
21. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment again in January 2020 and then officers met with Mrs X to discuss the outcome of the noise monitoring. They explained that it had not captured any evidence of a noise nuisance and so it could not take any action against her neighbour. The officers advised Mrs X that her neighbour wanted to move and the Council had given her additional priority on the housing register to speed up the process. The officers also made several other suggestions to Mrs X, such as wearing ear plugs, installing sound proofing or taking part in mediation.
22. The Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment again for an extended period of two to four weeks. Mrs X did not want it installed immediately and so it was agreed that Mrs X would contact the Council when she wanted it installed again. In the meantime, Mrs X agreed to try to capture evidence of noise on her mobile phone by using a new Noise App which the Council was trialling.
23. Mrs X submitted several recordings to the Council through the Noise App on her phone. She also regularly submitted reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance to the Council by email.
24. Mrs X accepted an offer on her house in March and moved out in April.
25. In June, Mrs X submitted a formal complaint to the Council about the way the Council had handled her reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. She said that Council officers were wrong to question her mental health and wrong to suggest she install sound proofing materials. She said that she was driven out of her house by the ineffectiveness of the Council’s officers and asked the Council to reimburse the money she had lost through having to sell her home.
26. The sale of Mrs X’s house completed in July.

Analysis

27. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision made without administrative fault. The Council decided to make a referral to mental health services with Mrs X’s consent after she told officers how the situation with her neighbour was making her feel. I have found no evidence of fault in the way officers made this decision.
28. The Council properly responded to the reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance which Mrs X made between September 2019 and February 2020. Officers visited Mrs X and her neighbour on several occasions, the Council installed noise monitoring equipment on two occasions, it arranged for the removal of rubbish, it supported Mrs X’s neighbour to move and it sought corroborating evidence from other nearby neighbours. The Council issued a warning when appropriate to do so and properly explained to Mrs X why it could not take further action. I have found no evidence of fault here.
29. However, the Council failed to assess some of the noise recordings which Mrs X submitted via the Noise App between February and April 2020. The Council has explained that Mrs X created three separate accounts and officers did not identify and link the duplicate accounts. As a result of this, the Council did not carry out timely assessments of four of the recordings submitted by Mrs X. This was fault.
30. I am satisfied that the Council properly assessed the other noise recordings Mrs X submitted, and appropriately dealt with Mrs X’s other reports of anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.
31. Mrs X believes there have been other complaints about her neighbour which the Council has failed to deal with. I have considered the Council’s records and I am satisfied that it properly sought evidence from other nearby residents but did not have enough evidence to enable it to take any action.

Injustice

32. I do not consider the Council’s failure to immediately identify the duplicate accounts and carry out timely assessments of the four recordings caused Mrs X any significant injustice.
33. The Council has recently reviewed the recordings and says that only one captured noise at a level that may be construed to be unreasonable at an unreasonable time of day. This related to a submission made on 10 February 2020, during the trial period of the Noise App.
34. If the Council had immediately assessed that noise recording, it would have considered taking further action against Mrs X’s neighbour. I do not consider the lack of any further action resulted in Mrs X experiencing further disturbance. This is because Mrs X continued to submit recordings via the Noise App and none captured evidence of excessive noise before Mrs X moved out.
35. I am satisfied that the failing identified did not lead to Mrs X having to sell her house, or to her losing money on the house sale. Mrs X put her house up for sale in October 2019, around one month after she first complained about her neighbour to the Council. She knew at that time that she would have to pay back some of the discount she received through the Right to Buy scheme. Mrs X then chose to reduce the price of the house in December, several months before the trial of the Noise App began in February 2020.
36. While I do not doubt that the situation with Mrs X’s former neighbour caused her significant distress, I do not consider Mrs X suffered this distress as a result of fault by the Council.

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council but it did not cause Mrs X an injustice which would need the Council to take any action.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

38. Where a council is satisfied that one of its tenants is responsible for anti-social behaviour, it can take action for a breach of the tenancy conditions and ultimately can seek possession of the property. I have not investigated any action the Council has taken which relates to Mrs X’s neighbour’s tenancy with the Council. This is because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the management of social housing. If Mrs X would like to complain about the Council’s actions as her neighbour’s landlord, she may wish to make a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, who has jurisdiction to investigate such complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman