Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to act on antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from his neighbour and delayed responding to his complaint. There is no evidence the Council properly investigated concerns Mr B raised in 2022 or that it considered the community trigger process and told Mr B about it. The Council delayed responding to the complaint. An apology, payment to Mr B, investigation of Mr B’s concerns and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to act on antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance by his neighbour; and
• delayed responding to his complaint.
2. Mr B says as a result he has had to put up with noise nuisance which has affected his and his family’s ability to sleep and has impacted on their medical conditions.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated the period from January 2021 onwards. I have not investigated the earlier period as Mr B did not submit a complaint to the Ombudsman until 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Mr B and the organisation now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

10. The Council’s website provides information about how the Council will handle complaints about noise. The website says the Council has powers to deal with noise that is considered a statutory nuisance. It says if it receives a complaint about neighbours playing loud music it will send a letter to the alleged offender(s) asking them to keep the volume down. The website says the Council will ask the person who has complained to keep a record of the noise and how it affects them on diary sheets for a few days or weeks, depending on how often the noise occurs.
11. The Council’s website says if the noise continues and it can see from the diary that it is unreasonable and therefore could constitute a noise nuisance the Council will serve an informal notice on the alleged offender.
12. The Council’s website says if the noise persists, it will attempt to visit at the times the noise normally occurs to witness a nuisance. It says the Council can then serve a legal notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requiring the offender to stop causing a nuisance.
13. The Council has an Antisocial Behaviour Policy and Procedure (the policy). This defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) as behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
14. The policy lists various types of ASB including:
• noise nuisance;
• verbal abuse/harassment/intimidation/threatening behaviour;
• hate related incidents (harassment based on race, sexual orientation, gender, disability, religion or age); and
• pets and animal nuisance.
15. The policy says Council officers will decide what the appropriate action should be based on the information/evidence they have when the initial investigation is complete.
16. The policy says the Council will acknowledge every complaint within three working days, contact complainants regularly to update them on progress and tell complainants when it feels there is no further action it can reasonably take.
17. The policy says the Council may take both formal and informal action in response to a complaint of ASB and will decide the appropriate level of response on a case by case basis. The policy lists some of the main actions the Council will consider in managing ASB complaints, which includes:
• Mediation;
• informal warnings;
• warning letters;
• acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs).
18. The policy refers to the Community Trigger process which is also known as the ASB case review. This allows members of the community to ask the Council, Police, Clinical Commissioning Group or Registered Social Landlords within the Borough to deal with persistent ASB. It says the process can be activated if the threshold is met. This is where the person complaining has made three separate qualifying complaints about anti-social behaviour in the previous six months and the complaints have not been appropriately addressed or there has been no action taken.
19. The policy makes clear the trigger is designed to ensure the relevant bodies work together to try and resolve any reports about anti-social behaviour.

What happened - noise nuisance

20. Following reports from Mr B about noise nuisance the Council wrote to Mr B’s neighbour in March 2021 to tell them about the complaint and asked them to keep the noise down.
21. Mr B contacted the Council again at the end of April to report noise nuisance and an officer visited. The officer did not hear any music. The officer knocked at Mr B’s neighbour and gave advice to the person that answered.
22. The Council carried out a further visit on 24 May when Mr B reported noise nuisance. The Council did not identify any noise.
23. The Council wrote to Mr B’s neighbour again on 3 August following further complaints of noise nuisance from Mr B. This was an informal warning letter. The Council sent a similar letter to Mr B’s neighbour on 13 October.
24. The Council installed noise recording equipment in Mr B’s property between 18 and 30 November. When the Council listened to the recordings although it identified some noise it did not identify a statutory nuisance or noise for a substantial period.
25. Mr B reported noise again on 6 December. A Council officer visited within 15 minutes but identified no noise.
26. Mr B reported noise again on 4 March 2022 and an officer visited but believed the noise was caused by builders at a different property.
27. Mr B continued to report noise nuisance on two occasions in April 2022, 14 occasions in May 2022, 13 occasions in June 2022, 11 occasions in July 2022, 10 occasions in August 2022, 11 occasions in September 2022 and made further reports of noise nuisance in October and November 2022. Some of those reports referred to loud music. Sometimes that was during the day and sometimes it was late at night or the early hours of the morning. Mr B also reported noise from a dog barking, often in the early hours of the morning and banging in the early hours of the morning from his neighbour’s property. Mr B also referred to racist behaviour from his neighbour.

What happened - complaint

28. Mr B says he put in a complaint in June 2021 and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two in August 2021 but the Council failed to deal with that. The Council though says Mr B’s reports in 2021 were treated as reports of antisocial behaviour, rather than as complaints and therefore they were not dealt with under the Council’s complaints procedure.
29. When Mr B asked the Council in January 2022 what it was doing with his complaint the Council registered the complaint at stage one. Under the Council’s complaints procedure the complaint should have been dealt with within 20 working days. The Council responded to the complaint in April 2022. The Council explained its investigation in 2021 had not identified the noise nuisance. The Council told Mr B it would monitor the situation and Mr B could continue to provide evidence. The Council also referred to the option of mediation.
30. Mr B was not happy with the Council’s response and asked the Council to take his complaint to stage two in April 2022. The Council’s complaints procedure again says complaint responses should be provided within 20 working days. The Council did not respond to the complaint until the end of June 2022. The Council apologised for the delay responding and reiterated its view that it had not identified the noise nuisance in 2021. The Council encouraged Mr B contact the police if he experienced racist behaviour whilst also asking Mr B to provide more detail about dates and times and who was involved. The Council again suggested mediation.

Analysis

31. Mr B says he has been experiencing noise and antisocial behaviour from his neighbour since 2012. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate a complaint about something which happened more than 12 months ago. I see no reason why Mr B could not have complained to the Council and then the Ombudsman at the time and I have therefore not exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate back to 2012. I have restricted the period of the Ombudsman’s investigation to January 2021 onwards.
32. Mr B says the Council failed to act when he reported antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance by his neighbour. In response to my enquiry, the Council says that despite visiting Mr B’s property and installing noise recording equipment it has not identified an actionable nuisance.
33. I have considered the documentary records both Mr B and the Council have provided. Unfortunately, despite asking for copies of the relevant documentary evidence the Council has not provided it and I have therefore had to rely on the Council’s chronology of events and on Mr B’s documentary evidence. That evidence satisfies me the Council took action in 2021 by visiting Mr B’s property and his neighbour’s property to seek to identify noise nuisance, including visiting on one occasion within 15 minutes of Mr B reporting a problem. I am also satisfied the Council installed recording equipment in November 2021. I am satisfied those visits and recordings did not provide the Council with evidence of an actionable nuisance. I therefore do not criticise the Council for any failure to act before the end of 2021 given the Council had investigated Mr B’s concerns and had not identified noise nuisance. That is not to say the noise was not affecting Mr B in 2021. Clearly it was. However, the Ombudsman could only criticise the Council if it had failed to investigate the concerns. In this case I am satisfied the Council had investigated the concerns in 2021 and had not identified an actionable nuisance. In those circumstances I consider the Council acted appropriately by writing to Mr B’s neighbour to tell them about the complaint and ask them to keep noise levels down. That is also in accordance with what the Council’s website says it will do when receiving complaints of noise nuisance.
34. I am, however, concerned about what appears to be a lack of action by the Council in 2022. The evidence is clear Mr B has continued to report noise nuisance from his neighbour throughout 2022. From May 2022 onwards Mr B has contacted the Council on multiple occasions every month to report similar problems. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council has acknowledged receipt of those contacts from Mr B or given him any information about what the Council has done with those. I am concerned about that given the Council said it would monitor the situation. I have also seen no evidence to suggest the Council has considered sending officers out to witness the noise nuisance or installing noise recording equipment again given Mr B’s reports of noise nuisance are more frequent. It is unsurprising Mr B does not feel the Council is taking his concerns seriously given there has been minimal contact with Mr B, other than the complaint responses, in 2022. I consider the lack of action in 2022 to be fault.
35. I am also concerned the Council has not given Mr B details about the community trigger process. Under the community trigger process Mr B can request a review of how the Council has handled his concerns if he makes a report about antisocial behaviour by his neighbour on more than three occasions in a six month period. Mr B has made at least 60 reports of noise nuisance between May 2022 and September 2022. I would have expected the Council to have signposted Mr B to the community trigger process. Failure to do that is therefore fault. I am also concerned the Council does not appear to have considered this option in this case as it says its antisocial behaviour team has not been involved and it is that team which makes the referrals for the community trigger process. However, the Council’s own processes are clear that noise is an example of antisocial behaviour. So, whether the Council’s antisocial behaviour team was involved is not relevant here in my view. This raises concerns about the Council’s understanding of when the community trigger process can be used.
36. The Council has also delayed considering Mr B’s complaints, which the Council accepts. That is unlikely to have encouraged Mr B to believe the Council was taking his concerns seriously.
37. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the Council should have taken action in response to the noise complaints reported by Mr B. However, I am not satisfied the Council properly investigated the issues in 2022. I therefore consider Mr B has suffered frustration at feeling the Council was not dealing with his concerns seriously. Mr B has also had to go to considerable time and trouble to pursue his complaint. As remedy for that I recommend the Council liaise with Mr B over the next two months to identify when he is experiencing noise nuisance from his neighbour. The Council should then investigate those issues by visiting to attempt to witness the noise Mr B is reporting and should give consideration to installing further noise recording equipment to see whether the nature and level of noise Mr B is now experiencing is different to that the Council investigated in 2021. The Council should then communicate its findings to Mr B and advise of any action it intends to take. The Council should also liaise with Mr B to see whether he wants to raise a community trigger. If he does, the Council should work with Mr B to arrange that. I further recommend the Council apologise to Mr B for the failure to deal with his concerns properly in 2022 and pay him £250 to reflect his frustration and the time and trouble he has had to go to.
38. I also recommend the Council provide a training session to officers dealing with antisocial behaviour so they are aware of the steps they need to take to investigate when concerns are raised. That training should include the community trigger process and when that process should be discussed with those who have raised concerns. The Council should also ensure the community trigger process is properly publicised on its website in a way that ensures those that do not know about it can still find the information about it.

Back to top

Recommended action

39. Within the one month of my decision the Council should:
• liaise with Mr B to see whether he wants to raise a community trigger. If he does, the Council should work with Mr B to arrange that;
• apologise to Mr B for the failure to deal with his concerns properly in 2022; and
• pay him £250 to reflect his frustration and the time and trouble he has had to go to.
40. I recommend the Council liaise with Mr B over the next two months to identify when he is experiencing noise nuisance from his neighbour. The Council should then investigate those issues by visiting to attempt to witness the noise Mr B is reporting and should consider installing further noise recording equipment to see whether the nature and level of noise Mr B is now experiencing is different to that when the Council investigated in 2021. The Council should then communicate its findings to Mr B and advise of any action it intends to take.
41. Within two months of my decision the Council should:
• provide a training session to officers dealing with antisocial behaviour so they are aware of the steps they need to take to investigate when concerns are raised. That training should also cover the community trigger process and when that process should be discussed with those who have raised concerns;
• ensure the community trigger process is properly publicised on its website in a way that ensures those that do not know about it can still find the information about it.

Back to top

Draft decision

42. Subject to further comments from Mr B or the Council, I intend to complete my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman