Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled some of Mr X’s reports of noise and anti-social behaviour. This caused Mr X distress and resulted in him continuing to complain to the Council. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to reflect the distress he and his family suffered.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not properly investigated his concerns about behaviour of his neighbours. Mr X says:
1. He has experienced anti-social behaviour from his neighbours in the form of noise complaints and verbal abuse.
2. One neighbour as a dangerous dog at the property which is illegal in the UK.
3. The neighbours are storing waste and rubbish in the gardens.
4. The Council has granted a new licence for the property despite the problems he has reported.
2. Mr X says the anti-social behaviour has caused his family distress. He and his family have lived in fear and have changed their routine to avoid meeting the neighbours.

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. As part of this investigation I considered the complaint made by Mr X and the responses from the Council. I consider the information provided by Mr X. I also made enquiries with the Council and considered the response received.
7. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. Councils have a general duty to take action to combat anti-social behaviour. Councils have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about anti-social behaviour, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary. Councils can discharge their duty in a variety of ways. This includes informal intervention (mediation/advice) and use of powers through landlord, licencing, planning and environmental health. (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 17)

What happened

9. In July 2019 Mr X reported his neighbours were making excessive noise in their property (Property Z). The Council sent Mr X a noise log sheet so he could record the times his neighbours were making noise. Mr X returned the sheet to the Council in September 2019 and made a further complaint that too many people were living in the property next to him, causing noise and waste issues.
10. In May 2020 Mr X made further noise complaints to the Council. He also reported one of the tenants in the neighbouring property had a dangerous dog which was a banned breed, and the tenants were dumping waste in their garden.
11. The Council contacted Mr X to explain one of the tenants was arrested by the Police. The Police referred Mr X to the Hate Crime Advocacy Service. Mr X also installed CCTV at his home. The Council contacted the landlord of Property Z to report the issues Mr X raised. The landlord responded to the Council in early June 2020 to say it had arranged for the removal of the waste but had not found evidence of rats. The landlord said it would arrange for pest control to look at this. The landlord also said it had issued verbal warnings to the tenants living at the property and will take further action if anti-social behaviour continues.
12. The Council also investigated Mr X’s concerns about a dangerous dog. In June 2020 an Animal Control Officer visited the site on three occasions but could not find evidence of the dog in question.
13. Mr X made further noise complaints about his neighbour to the Council in June 2020 and July 2020. He raised a formal complaint against the Council on 9 July 2020 about the lack of action the Council had taken in investigating his reports about the tenants in Property Z. The Council contacted the landlord of Property Z to report the further issues Mr X raised about their tenants at Property Z. The Council asked the landlord to confirm what action it was taking to prevent ongoing anti-social behaviour from the tenants. The Council also telephoned Mr X on 14 July 2020. The notes from this call say Mr X said there were no new issues with the tenant of Property Z since he had bail conditions not to contact Mr X.
14. Mr X raised further noise complaints to the Council about the tenants at Property Z in late July 2020 and provided video evidence. Mr X also raised further reports of rubbish and pest issues coming from Property Z. Again the Council contacted the landlord of Property Z about these issues and requested it confirm what action it was taking. As the Council did not receive a response from the landlord at Property Z it sent further emails chasing a response. The Council passed Mr X’s video evidence to the Neighbourhood Enforcement Teams, including Animal Control, and the Police. The Council’s Animal Control Officer was able to view one of the videos provided by Mr X and identify that the dog he reported was not a dangerous breed.
15. On 31 July 2020 the Council provided its stage one response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council said:
• Its Animal Control Officer had investigated his reports of a dangerous dog but found the dog was not a dangerous breed.
• It had opened an investigation, in May 2020, into his concerns about high levels of noise, waste being stored in the gardens and rat infestations at Property Z. The Council contacted the landlord of Property Z who arranged for the waste to be removed, for pest control to attend and issued warnings to the tenants in question. The Council said its officer did not witness any noise nuisance during investigations and could not take any enforcement action.
• The landlord for Property Z had made a new application for a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence in July 2020 and the Council is assessing this application. The Council has asked the landlord for details of tenancy agreements, procedures for dealing with anti-social behaviour as part of this assessment and is waiting to receive this from the landlord.
• It had not provided Mr X with adequate feedback about the action it had taken following his reports about Property Z and apologised. The Council said its investigations carried out by individual teams were not joined up.
16. On 18 August 2020 the Council’s Animal Control Officer wrote to Mr X to explain why they could not take further action in relation to the dog he reported. The Animal Control Officer explained why he did not think the dog in question was a dangerous breed. He also told Mr X the behaviour witnessed in the videos of the dog would not be deemed worthy of seizing the dog.
17. On 19 August 2019 the landlord of Property Z confirmed to the Council they had served an eviction notice on one of the tenants at Property Z. On the same day Mr X wrote to the Council requesting the Council consider his complaint at stage two of its complaints process. Mr X raised the same issues about the Council’s handling of the ongoing anti-social behaviour, dangerous dog and waste issues at Property Z. Mr X said he wanted the Council to refuse to grant a HMO licence to the landlord of Property Z, and due to the ongoing anti-social behaviour have the tenants evicted and Property Z sold.
18. On 21 August 2020 a Housing Enforcement Officer from the Council visited Mr X to discuss the waste issues he raised and took photographs of the waste build up. The Council also contacted the landlord of Property Z to ask they remove the waste and carry out pest control treatment. The landlord responded on 26 August 2020 with photographs showing the rubbish had been removed from the garden of Property Z. The landlord also provided a pest control report in early September 2020.
19. Mr X wrote to the Council on 3 September 2020 saying the landlord of Property Z was operating a HMO without a licence. Mr X asked the Council to refuse to grant a HMO licence to the landlord of Property Z.
20. The Council responded to Mr X on 11 September 2020. The Council said it granted a HMO licence to the previous managing agents of Property Z in 2017 for a period of 5 years. As this company dissolved in 2020 the owner of Property Z has applied for a HMO licence for the landlords managing the property. The Council told Mr X the rubbish at Property Z had been cleared from the garden and pest control had visited the property to carry out treatment. The Council said it must consider the landlord’s application for a HMO licence and explained the grounds it can refuse to grant a licence. The Council said it believed the landlord has demonstrated compliance with the requirements for a licence.
21. The Council provided its stage two response to Mr X’s complaint on 28 September 2020. The Council reiterated its position about the dangerous dog. The Council said it cannot ask a property owner to sell their property and change it back to a family home. The Council confirmed the landlord applied for a new HMO licence as they were new owners, and a new licence was needed.
22. The Council inspected Property Z in October 2020 as part of the landlord’s licencing application. The Council found Property Z was suitable for 5 persons to live but placed a condition on the landlord to upgrade the kitchen facilities and fire alarms. The Council granted a HMO licence in December 2020 and has kept in contact with the landlord regarding the conditions attached to this licence, including carrying out inspections of the works.
23. Mr X made further reports of anti-social behaviour from the tenants at Property Z in November 2020. Following this the Council’s Neighbourhood Enforcement Team carried out a foot patrol after midnight but found no noise at Property Z. In late November Mr X reported the tenants of Property Z making excess noise, using threatening language and fighting in the middle of the night. The Police attended one of these incidents and reminded one tenant at Property Z of his bail conditions not to have contact with Mr X, however the Police took no further action. The Housing Enforcement Team from the Council also visited the property in December 2020 in light of Mr X’s reports. A Housing Enforcement Officer spoke with two tenants at Property Z.
24. In January 2021 Mr X contacted the Council to report a fight between some of the tenants at Property Z. The Police and an ambulance were called to the scene. The Council contacted the Police to obtain further details of the incident and found out the police arrested one of the tenants at Property Z. The Council passed this information onto the landlord of Property Z.
25. In February 2021 the landlord of Property Z told the Council they are taking action to evict the tenants in question and provided the Council with copies of the notices sent to the tenants. The Council passed this information onto Mr X. Once the eviction notices expired, the landlord of Property Z confirmed to the Council they had applied to court to remove the tenants in question.

Analysis

a) Reports of noise complaints and verbal abuse

26. The Council was at fault for how it investigated Mr X’s reports of noise and verbal abuse from the tenants of Property Z. Mr X reported these concerns to the Council in May 2019, he also sent the Council a noise diary he had completed. It is not clear what the Council did after this except to tell Mr X to report further noise complaints. When the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in July 2020 it told him it did not think any further action was necessary following his reports in 2019, however I cannot see that the Council communicated this to Mr X or provided him with reasons why it was closing the matter.
27. Mr X reported similar concerns again in May 2020. He continued to make reports of anti-social behaviour from June 2020 to September 2020 and sent the Council video evidence. Apart from passing the details of the issues onto the landlord I cannot see what the Council did to investigate Mr X’s concerns. If the Council did not think it necessary to take further action or investigate further it should have told Mr X and explained the reasons. As a result Mr X continued to make noise related complaints to the Council about his neighbours, and subsequently raised a formal complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports.
28. When Mr X raised further complaints of noise and verbal abuse in November 2020 the Council decided to carry out a foot patrol to see if its officers could witness noise or anti-social behaviour. The Council also visited the tenants at Property Z to speak with them about the noise issues. The Council kept in contact with the landlord of Property Z about the action the landlord was taking to remove the tenants in question. This was an appropriate response from the Council.

b) Mr X’s reports of a dangerous dog at Property Z

29. The Council was not at fault for how it responded to Mr X’s concerns about a dangerous dog. When Mr X reported his concerns about a dangerous breed of dog at Property Z the Council passed his concerns onto its Animal Control Officer. The Council visited the site on three occasions to search for evidence of the dog. The Council also put up anti-fouling stencils outside of Property Z and along a nearby alleyway. This was a reasonable response.
30. Once Mr X sent in video footage of the dog in question, Animal Control were able to identify the breed of dog. Animal Control wrote to Mr X in August 2020 setting out their findings. They also explained why based on the video footage they were unable to take action against the owner.

c) Waste and rubbish in the gardens at Property Z

31. Mr X reported concerns about waste being stored in the garden of Property Z in May – July 2020 and again in September 2020. On each occasion the Council reported this to the landlord of Property Z and requested they have the waste removed from the garden and carry out pest control treatment. The Council kept in contact with the landlord of Property Z until it had confirmation the waste had been removed and the site treated by pest control. This was an appropriate response from the Council, and I do not find fault with how it handled these reports.

d) The Council granted a new HMO licence for Property Z

32. The owner of Property Z applied for a new HMO licence, in July 2020, as it had employed a new landlord to manage the property. Prior to this Property Z had a HMO licence in place. When deciding whether to grant a new licence the Council carried out inspections of Property Z. It identified areas where further works could be carried out to Property Z, however decided to grant the licence with the condition that the owner would complete these works.
33. I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision making. It has viewed the property and considered it can grant a HMO licence with conditions. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make. I understand Mr X’s concerns that he wants the property used as a family home and not a HMO, however this is not reason to refuse a licence.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within two months of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Pay Mr X £200 in recognition of the distress he and his family suffered as a result of the Council not keeping him informed following his reports of noise in 2019 and 2020.
• Provide a reminder to staff to ensure outcomes of investigations following reports of noise and anti-social behaviour are communicated to those complaining.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman