Summary: Miss Y complained about the Council’s response to her requests for help to move from her current home, for which she has a secure tenancy with the Council, and her complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbours. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the way it responded to her complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour. It has agreed to remedy this by apologising and paying Miss Y £2,100 to reflect the avoidable loss of amenity, distress, time and trouble its faults caused her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss Y, complained about the Council’s response to her requests for help to move from her current home, for which she has a secure tenancy with the Council, and her complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour by her neighbours.
2. Miss Y told us the Council failed to take appropriate action to help her move or resolve the problems caused by the neighbours. This caused her significant distress and worry, affecting her health.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s response to her concerns about noise and anti-social behaviour and requests for help to find private rented accommodation in another area. The last section of this decision explains my reasons for not investigating issues that relate to actions by the Council, in its capacity as Miss Y’s social landlord, including those relating to a transfer of her secure tenancy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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

7. I have spoken to Miss Y, made enquiries of the Council and read the information Miss Y and the Council have provided about the complaint.
8. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on this draft decision. I considered their responses before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance

9. Councils have a general duty to take action to combat anti-social behaviour under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They also have specific powers to take action under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
10. Councils must look into complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If a council decides noise amounts to a statutory nuisance, it may take enforcement action. A council may also take informal action, if it considers the noise complained about is not a statutory nuisance, but is causing a nuisance.

Private rented property licensing

11. The Council operates a selective landlord licensing scheme, under section 80 of the Housing Act 2004. All landlords and/or property managing agents letting a residential property within the borough must apply for a selective licence.
12. A key purpose of these schemes is to ensure landlords deal more effectively with anti-social behaviour by their tenants.
13. It is a criminal offence to let a property in the borough, that is required to be licensed, without applying for a licence. The Council has the power, under the Act, to take enforcement action including prosecution, imposing financial penalties and refusing or revoking a licence.

What happened

14. Miss Y has had a secure tenancy with the Council for many years and has lived in her current property for over 27 years. Her adult son who lives with her has a serious health condition and she had to give up her job six years ago to care for him. Miss Y now wants to move to the area where she was born and grew up and has family who can support her with her son’s care.
15. In addition to her wish to move, since 2019, when new tenants moved into the privately rented property next door, Miss Y has experienced problems caused by their noise and anti -social behaviour.
16. Miss Y’s main point of contact about her concerns has been the Community Solutions Team. But a number of other teams have also been involved including the Environmental Enforcement Team and the Private Sector Housing Team.
17. The Council told us the Community Solutions Team’s role is to support “the person” as opposed to managing the property. It primarily offers advice to council tenants but will engage with third parties such as the police or a private tenant where appropriate. Cases requiring formal action are dealt with by the Council’s Private Sector Housing Team or Environmental Enforcement Team who have the power to take enforcement action.

December 2019 – February 2020

18. In 2019 Miss Y complained to the Council about noise from the next-door property. She described this as excessive noise at night, as late as 3.00 am, including a child running and playing, banging on walls and shouting. In November 2019, the Council’s Environmental Enforcement Team (Noise team) wrote to her neighbours drawing their attention to the complaint, and asking them, if this was correct, to reduce the noise to prevent further complaints.
19. The team told Miss Y it had issued a warning letter. It said she should let it know if the noise continued and it would arrange a further investigation. She was given the team’s out of hours contact details.
20. New tenants moved into the next-door property in December 2019. Miss Y says the noise problems continued and she also noticed many different people coming and going from the property. There were incidents with these people which led her to feel threatened by their behaviour and she became very worried about her and her son’s safety.
21. Miss Y told us she emailed and phoned the Council’s Housing Department a number of times in January and February, to ask about a transfer to another area. She also contacted the Noise team.

March 2020

22. On 2 March a Noise team officer contacted Miss Y by email. He asked about the behaviour of her new neighbours. Miss Y told him the noise had not stopped, there had been more than 50 people staying at the property since January, there had been rows with the men visiting and she was scared for her safety. She said the situation was having a serious effect on her health, she had asked the Council for a home visit by email in January but it had not responded.
23. The officer said he would inform the landlord’s agents about the noise complaint. Miss Y provided him with details of the noise. She told him how scared she was and desperate to move closer to her family. She said this was no longer just a noise problem and the situation was making her and her son very ill. I understand there was a concern the number of visitors next door and their anti-social behaviour was linked to drug dealing.
24. According to the Council’s chronology, the Noise team had no further contact with Miss Y, after her last email to it of 2 March, until August 2020.
25. On 4 March, Citizens Advice contacted the Council about Miss Y’s concerns. It explained her problems with the neighbours, difficulties as her son’s sole carer and wish to move away from London and closer to her family. An officer from the Community Solutions Team (Community Solutions) phoned Miss Y the same day to discuss her situation. Miss Y said the local authority for the area to which she wanted to move had not accepted her application to join its housing register because she did not meet its residency criteria.
26. The officer, together with a colleague, visited Miss Y at her home on 11 March. They suggested Miss Y’s housing options were to:

• register for a mutual exchange. Miss Y had already done this.
• apply to the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. This offers older tenants of social landlords in London boroughs opportunities to move away to other areas. Tenants who move through the scheme become tenants of a housing association, pay a social rent and their former tenancy rights are protected. Tenants must be at least 55 to apply. Although Miss Y was not yet 55 (the lower age limit for the scheme) the officers thought it possible her application might still be accepted.
• rent privately in the other area.
• apply for a management transfer within the borough.

27. The officers also discussed the problems Miss Y was experiencing because of her neighbours’ noise, anti-social and threatening behaviour. They advised her to contact the police and agreed to contact the local Safer Neighbourhood Team on her behalf. The officers also said they would contact the Private Sector Housing Team (PSH team).
28. A local councillor had contacted the Council on Miss Y’s behalf. On 12 March, a Community Solutions service manager wrote to the councillor explaining the issues discussed and the action the Council would take following the meeting with Miss Y on 11 March.
29. The Safer Neighbourhood Team arranged to visit Miss Y on 18 March. Miss Y cancelled this as she was unwell.
30. The PSH team wrote to the neighbours’ landlord on 19 March. It referred to complaints about overcrowding and the tenants’ anti-social behaviour. It said, as the property had a selective licence, the landlord was required to keep to the licence conditions, and the Council may take enforcement action if there were further complaints. It asked the landlord to respond to the issues raised within 14 days.

April 2020 – July 2020

31. A Community Solutions officer wrote to Miss Y in May confirming the action taken since their meeting in March. She said:

• The Safer Neighbourhood Team had arranged to visit Miss Y at home although the visit had been postponed because she was unwell and had not yet been re-arranged.
• Information about Talking Therapies had been provided to her as support for her son.
• Miss Y’s housing options had been explained. A link to information about the options was provided.
• The case would now be closed but Miss Y should let her know if there were future problems with the neighbours and support from the police would be sourced.

32. Miss Y contacted the Housing Department again in July. She was extremely distressed about the situation and the effect the ongoing issues with the neighbours were having on her health. Community Solutions officers visited Miss Y at home on 24 July.

• Miss Y told them her application to Seaside and Country Homes had been refused because she was not yet 55.
• She was too frightened to report the neighbours’ activities to the police.
• The officers urged her to contact the police any time if she feels threatened, and report noise to the Noise team at the time it occurs.
• They could gather evidence to support a case for a management transfer. But this could only be to another property within the borough, not to another local authority area.
• They might be able to help Miss Y obtain private rented accommodation in another area or support a homelessness application to another local authority. But she still may not be offered social housing, even if an application was accepted.

33. The officers were concerned about Miss Y’s health and well- being. After the visit they referred her to the Council’s Adult Social Care Safeguarding Unit (ASC Safeguarding).
34. Following a home visit by the Safer Neighbourhoods Team, Miss Y began reporting the neighbours’ activities to the police.

August 2020

35. A Community Solutions service manager provided an update following the July visit to another councillor who had contacted the Council on Miss Y’s behalf. ASC Safeguarding spoke to Miss Y about support it could offer, including help with care for her son and details of counselling services. Victim Support contacted Miss Y, following a referral by Community Solutions, and provided equipment to help her feel safer at home.
36. Miss Y complained to the Noise team again. But the noise had stopped by the time officers were able to attend to check the situation.
37. She told a Community Solutions officer the noise issues and anti-social behaviour were still ongoing. She said the noise - shouting, banging and slamming of doors, late at night and in the early hours – was sporadic which made it difficult to arrange for Noise team officers to be there while the disturbance was ongoing. The officer said she would ask the Noise team about the possibility of installing noise equipment at Miss Y’s home.
38. Miss Y also said she had been in touch with the letting agents. They had told her, other than speaking to the tenants, there was nothing they could do about their behaviour.
39. Miss Y told Community Solutions she could not cope with the situation any longer. She was prepared to give up her secure tenancy and move away into private rented accommodation.

September 2020

40. On 3 September, Miss Y sent Community Solutions details of a privately rented property available in the area she wanted to move to. She asked about help with the move and its cost, and the possibility of a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). An officer replied on 4 September. She asked Miss Y to find out more about the property and whether the landlord would accept housing benefit. She said she could complete an application for Miss Y for a DHP to cover the rent deposit and removal costs.
41. Miss Y had provided recordings of the noise to Community Solutions. They passed these to the Noise team on 28 September. They asked whether the Noise team had received this complaint from Miss Y and if a case was open. The Noise team confirmed they had received complaints from Miss Y. But the noise had stopped by the time they called back. They had to prioritise visits to premises where noise was still ongoing.
42. The Noise team says they listened to Miss Y’s recordings. They identified raised voices on one recording but did not pick up anything of significance from the others. They passed the recordings on to the Safer Neighbourhood Team. An officer tried to call her to discuss her noise complaint. Miss Y said she was too distressed to have a conversation with him.
43. Miss Y contacted Community Solutions by email on 28 September. She provided a detailed account of what had happened over the last year and the extreme distress this was causing her. The officer replied explaining the steps the Council had taken to try to help resolve the situation.

October 2020

44. Miss Y made a formal complaint to the Council about its response to the ongoing issues with her neighbours. It replied on 12 October, referring to the housing options discussed with her, the advice she should report criminal activity to the police and noise to the Noise team. Miss Y had not replied to the email of 4 September, but it would help her complete a DHP application if she found a privately rented property which accepted housing benefit. It hoped the remedies offered would allow a resolution whereby Miss Y could enjoy her property in a peaceful environment or move to an area of her choice.
45. A Community Solutions officer also contacted Miss Y to explain she had not progressed a DHP application on 4 September because she had not heard back from Miss Y with the information requested. She confirmed she would be able to help with the application once Miss Y found a suitable property and had the information needed about rent, deposit and acceptance of housing benefit.
46. Miss Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and brought this to us on 14 October.

November 2020

47. Miss Y made further complaints to the Noise team but the disturbance was not ongoing at the time of their call back. An officer wrote to the neighbours about the complaint on 9 November, asking them, if this was correct, to reduce the noise.
48. Community Solutions arranged for the Council’s team, which placed homeless applicants in accommodation across the country, to add Miss Y to their list and contact her if a suitable property became available in her chosen area. They also helped Miss Y complete a DHP application form, so her application could be progressed without delay if she found a suitable property.
49. The PSH team wrote to the landlord of the next-door property on 20 November asking for information required to enable it to enforce its function in relation to property licensing.

December 2020 – February 2021

50. The PSH team wrote again to the landlord on 16 February. It referred to complaints from neighbours about noise nuisance and the tenants’ anti-social and threatening behaviour. It also referred to the application for a selective licence and conditions requiring landlords to manage anti-social behaviour. It said the decision on whether to grant the licence was currently pending. The landlord’s managing agents contacted the PSH team the same day. They confirmed the landlord was selling the property because of issues with the neighbour and the tenants would be leaving within the month.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Community Solutions’ response

51. I have not investigated issues relating to Miss Y’s housing options as a secure tenant, such as a possible management transfer or her application to Seaside and Country Homes, for the reasons explained in paragraph 66 below.
52. The Council has a duty to provide general housing and benefits advice to all its residents, not just its tenants, and respond to their complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour. Here, this advice and help was given to Miss Y by Community Solutions. I consider this support was separate to action taken by the Council in its capacity as Miss Y’s landlord and we are able to investigate this part of Miss Y’s complaint.
53. My view is Community Solutions provided Miss Y with appropriate advice about other housing options and her DHP application. There appears to have been an initial misunderstanding about the progress of the application. I consider the Council resolved this when it explained the position and helped Miss Y complete an application.
54. Community Solutions passed information Miss Y provided about noise and anti-social behaviour to the Noise team and PSH team for action. They also made referrals for Miss Y to the Safer Neighbourhood Team, Victim Support and ASC Safeguarding as additional support for her.
55. I have not found fault in the way Community Solutions responded to Miss Y’s requests about other housing options and help with the noise and anti-social behaviour issues.

Noise team and PSH team’s response to Miss Y’s complaints about noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour

56. I understand, because the noise reported by Miss Y was unpredictable, there were some practical difficulties for the Noise team in responding to Miss Y’s calls at a time when the disturbance was still ongoing. But Miss Y had been complaining for many months, not only about the noise but the anti-social behaviour. She was clearly extremely distressed and scared.
57. The Council says it agreed to consider using monitoring equipment, in September 2020, if the problems could not be resolved in any other way. However, I have not seen any records to show whether, when or how the Noise team considered action it could take to complete an effective investigation into Miss Y’s longstanding complaint. My view is this was fault by the Council and the uncertainty about the outcome of her complaint caused Miss Y avoidable distress and worry.
58. But the noise and anti-social behaviour issues had also been referred to the PSH team in March 2020. This team is responsible for enforcing the requirements for landlords and managing agents letting residential properties to apply for a licence and maintain licence conditions.
59. The PSH team did not take any action to follow up their letter of March 2020 to the landlord about noise and anti-social behaviour. I have not seen any evidence further complaints Miss Y made to the Council from March 2020 were shared with the PSH team.
60. Further, my understanding is the landlord did not apply for a licence to let the property until July 2020. On this basis, it appears there was no licence or application in place when the PSH team contacted the landlord in March 2020. No reference was made to this in the team’s letter to the landlord. The selective licensing scheme is compulsory, and it is a criminal office to let a property without having applied for a licence. I consider the PSH team’s failure to consider what action to take about the letting of the property without a licence application being made, and further action to follow up the complaints of noise and anti-social behaviour by the tenants was fault.
61. The Council told us the PSH case remained inactive until a new officer was assigned to it in February 2021. It accepted more could have been done from March 2020 to February 2021 if the incidents Miss Y reported had been correctly channelled through the PSH enforcement route. It said, because Covid 19 restrictions affected the management of complaints about noise and anti-social behaviour, it was difficult to assess whether Miss Y’s complaints could have been resolved sooner. But it accepted its failure to tell Miss Y how it planned to manage and monitor the allegations of overcrowding and anti-social behaviour caused her additional uncertainty and confusion during a time when she was highly distressed and upset. It offered a payment of £150 to remedy this injustice.
62. I note the intervention by the PSH team in February 2021 brought about an immediate conclusion to the complaints about the tenants’ noise and anti-social behaviour. In my view, it is likely prompt and effective intervention by the PSH team from March 2020 would have resolved these concerns much sooner than February 2021. I consider the PSH team’s failure to take prompt and effective action regarding appropriate enforcement of the licence scheme requirements was fault which caused Miss Y to suffer the effect of her neighbours’ noise and anti-social behaviour for longer than necessary. My assessment is, had the PSH team taken appropriate action from March 2020, the issues could have been resolved within a few months.
63. I do not consider the Council’s offer of a payment of £150 to remedy the distress its fault caused Miss Y is in line with our expectations as set out in our published guidance on remedies. The evidence I have seen shows how extremely distressed and scared Miss Y was about the activities of her neighbours and their visitors, and the serious effect of this on her and her son’s health. I note officers referred Miss Y to ASC Safeguarding in July 2020 because they were so concerned about her. In my view the fault caused Miss Y an avoidable, significant loss of amenity for a period of seven months from July 2020 to February 2021.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. To remedy the action caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss Y for the faults by its Noise and PSH teams in the investigation of her complaints about her neighbours’ noise and anti-social behaviour.
• Pay Miss Y £2,100 in recognition of the avoidable loss of amenity, distress, time and trouble these faults caused her (assessed at £300 a month over seven months). This figure is based on the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have found fault by the Council causing Miss Y injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

66. I did not investigate Miss Y’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her housing options as its tenant. This is because the Council is a social housing provider and was acting in its capacity as Miss Y’s landlord (see paragraph five above). Complaints about registered social housing providers must be made to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman