Summary: The Council correctly dealt with reports of anti-social behaviour but could have directed Mr B to the landlord of the property three months sooner. This did not cause any significant injustice, so we make no recommendations to the Council. The Council and landlord have worked together to improve Mr B’s situation by installing a smoking shelter and screening at the neighbouring property, and vetting tenants to let more sensitively.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says since May 2019 the Council has failed to appropriately deal with antisocial behaviour from residents at the neighbouring property. This has caused anxiety and depression to Mr B and his father, and they are considering selling their family home. Mr B says they cannot use their garden, friends and family won’t visit, and they have a constant worry their house could be targeted because of speaking up about the anti-social behaviour. Mr B says although the Council has explained what is now happening to manage the situation, it has not recognised the impact from the earlier mismanagement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). I exercised discretion to investigate the issues back to 2019 on the basis Mr B said he did not know who was responsible for the property so did not know who to complain to but complained promptly once he found out.
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
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. I considered information provided by Mr B and the Council.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Council has a contract with Emerging Futures to provide housing related support to single homeless people who need emergency accommodation. The Council wishes to reduce rough sleeping to as close to zero as possible. The aim is to provide short term support and accommodation to move people into sustainable long-term accommodation and prevent them falling into further crisis. Emerging Futures lease the property next door to Mr B (property A) to temporarily house rough sleepers, or those at risk of sleeping rough, in shared accommodation. Emerging Futures support people with a wide range of support needs, and visit property A several times a day.
9. Mr B says he has witnessed problems at the property since May 2019, such as drug dealing, feeling intimidated, missiles thrown at the property, and police raids. There is no evidence Mr B raised concerns with the Council until August 2020 and Emerging Futures in November 2020. I am therefore concentrating on matters from August 2020 as we cannot expect the Council to act on something it is unaware of.
10. The Council’s website says “Anti-Social Behaviour is any aggressive, intimidating, or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person’s quality of life. In other words, behaviour that undermines any person’s right to enjoy their home, their neighbourhood and their daily life in peace and safety. It reduces feelings of safety and will not be tolerated.”
11. The Council’s anti-social behaviour team works with partnership agencies such as the police and registered landlords to tackle this sort of behaviour. When Mr B contacted the Council about the issues at property A it promptly contacted the police to see if the police were aware of issues at the property. The Council told Mr B to inform the police if he experienced threatening/intimidating behaviour or witnessed drug activity, as these are criminal matters.
12. The next step for the Council was to carry out a community questionnaire, which it did. This did not highlight any concerns from other residents about property A. The Council explained to Mr B the concerns he raises are primarily ones for the police to deal with.
13. In November 2020 the Council told Mr B that Emerging Futures manage property A and gave Mr B the direct contact details. Mr B made a complaint to Emerging Futures about the actions of their tenants. Mr B was disappointed nobody gave him this information sooner and had not told him what the property was used for, he had thought a ‘gangster’ had bought the property to deal drugs from.
14. Mr B repeatedly raised concerns with the Council, who promptly responded and directed him to the police or Emerging Futures as the people who could action the concerns. The Council also made its own contacts with those partners and offered to meet with Mr B, but he did not wish to do so. Mr B is a carer for his father, and they were shielding during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Council offered a video meeting. Mr B met with the police and the manager of property A.
15. Mr B raised concerns about tenants of property A smoking and chatting on the back doorstep or over the fence. Following suggestions by the Council, Emerging Futures installed a smoking shelter at the end of the garden and asked tenants to use it, and installed trellis on the fence.
16. In September Mr B raised concerns about paint splattered up property A, and rubbish out the front, which had been there since June. The Council referred this to Emerging Futures to action. There was some delay resolving the issues, and the paint could not be fully cleaned off.
17. To alleviate Mr B’s anxiety Emerging Futures are vetting tenants for the property to try and reduce the sorts of behaviour impacting Mr B and his father. However, they cannot guarantee tenants will not cause some disruption, in the same way none of us can have any guarantees about our neighbours.
18. There is anti-social behaviour in alleyways around Mr B’s property, but the Council cannot prove this is associated with tenants of property A.
19. The anti-social behaviour, and the perceived lack of action, had a negative impact on Mr B’s mental health.

Was there fault causing injustice?

20. Mr B and his father have been significantly impacted by the tenants at property A. Most events occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic while Mr B’s father was shielding at home. Because of tobacco and cannabis smells he did not feel he could open his windows. Due to tenants looking at them, and feeling intimidated, Mr B and his father did not feel able to use their garden. Due to actions of the neighbouring tenants, shouting and using drugs, Mr B and his father did not feel able to invite family and friends over.
21. I cannot say the above impact is caused by fault of the Council. The Council’s anti-social behaviour team has been in constant contact with Mr B, and properly referred him to the police and Emerging Futures. The Council has also shared information with those agencies. The Council was clear with Mr B throughout that it could not do much to assist, and he was best reporting his concerns directly to the police and Emerging Futures. The Council says Emerging Futures has given warnings to, or moved on any residents, that it has found has caused anti-social behaviour.
22. The nature of the property means tenants change on a regular basis as they are supported on to longer term accommodation. The aim is to be referred on within seven days. This makes it difficult to investigate anti-social behaviour, as the tenant may have moved on before the Council/police has evidence to act on. Also, as a house in multiple occupation, it can be difficult to establish who is the cause of any anti-social behaviour.
23. Emerging Futures would have the best chance of resolving issues. The resident’s license to occupy the room says the resident or their visitors are not to cause a nuisance to neighbours. The license also says residents are not to have, use/supply, or allow visitors to have, use/supply, illegal drugs in the premises. Emerging Futures can end the license because of a breach of the terms. Emerging Futures could still have difficulty establishing which resident is causing any nuisance. Therefore, I consider the Council’s advice to Mr B to contact Emerging Futures to try and resolve nuisance concerns from the property was the correct action.
24. Some of the issues reported, such as banging sounds from the property, and slamming doors, are not anti-social behaviour. You must expect to hear some sounds from neighbours when you live in a terraced property. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated this for most people, as we were all in our homes for most of the day.
25. Although smelling smoke is not pleasant, smoking in your own garden or home is not anti-social behaviour. Emerging Futures has put a smoking shelter away from the house and is encouraging tenants to use that, to help alleviate the impact on Mr B.
26. It might have helped if Emerging Futures had contacted the neighbours of property A when it took on the management of the property. It could have provided its contact details for neighbours to report any problems. It might want to consider such action for any future properties it takes on. This might have prevented Mr B some time and trouble, but I cannot say it is fault as there was no specific requirement to do so.
27. I find the Council should have given Mr B the contact details for Emerging Futures sooner, so that he could directly report concerns, and as the best potential route to resolve any issues. However, this was only between August and November, so was not a significant delay. Nuisance issues continued after November despite Mr B’s reports to Emerging Futures so this delay has not had a significant impact.
28. Mr B would like property A closed, but this is not something the Ombudsman can recommend. The Council has a duty to provide housing to those people, and it has a contract with Emerging Futures which specifies the options to terminate. A complaint by a neighbour is not one of the options to terminate the contract. I fully understand Mr B does not wish it to be next door to him, given problems he has experienced over the years, but that is not a reason for the Council to revoke the contract with Emerging Futures. Instead, Emerging Futures are vetting the tenants to sensitively let the rooms and has acted such as installing the smoking shelter and screening to help neighbour relations.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was a short delay in giving Mr B the contact details for Emerging Futures, but this did not cause Mr B a significant injustice that warrants any recommended action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman