Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to address her reports of anti-social behaviour and a noise nuisance by her neighbour. She said this caused her and her family distress and impacted their health. We found the Council followed its anti-social behaviour policy by investigating the concerns and considering the powers available to it. We cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision. The Council has taken some action, and it is considering further action in its role as a registered social landlord. This process is outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained about how the Council dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour by her neighbour (Ms X). She said it failed to properly investigate her concerns and take enough action to protect her from threats, noise, and allegations.
2. Mrs B said, as a result, she and her family have experienced distress, and she wants her neighbour to be rehoused elsewhere.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mrs B’s reported anti-social behaviour and how it considered allegations by Ms X against Mrs B.
4. I have not investigated the Council’s handling of Mrs B’s concerns in its role as a registered social landlord. Such matters are outside our jurisdiction and can be brought to the attention of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 my investigation, I have:
• considered Mrs B’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs B and considered the information she provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• considered the relevant law, guidance and Council Policy to the complaint.
9. Mrs 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

Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

10. The Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy (the Policy) sets out the Council considers ASB to be:
• 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.
11. It does not consider occasional or one-off incidences of noise, reasonable domestic noise, children playing, neighbour boundary disputes, cooking smells or smoking to be anti-social behaviour.
12. People can report ASB to the council in various ways including through its website, by phone or in writing. It is not an emergency response service, and any matter of a criminal nature should be reported to the Police. The Council says it will address ASB firmly and by using an evidence based and proportionate approach, this may be by:
• visiting or monitoring an area;
• asking the persons involved for statements;
• considering noise recordings, photos or other evidence of the alleged ASB, which should normally be submitted through its Noise App; and
• considering information received from partner agencies.
13. It will not disclose the identity of anonymous complainants unless this has been agreed in advance or it is required to do so for lawful reasons.
14. The Council may decide not to investigate a complaint about ASB if it does not consider a matter actionable by the Council, or if it finds allegations are false or malicious. It may decide to take a lead in investigating reports of ASB in circumstances where the person experiencing or perpetrating the ASB is a Council tenant, or visitors of a Council tenant.
15. If the Council decides no action should be taken it will inform the persons involved and explain its reasons.
16. Where the Council identifies ASB may be taking place, it may attempt early intervention which may include providing advice, verbal or written warnings, mediation, and Good Neighbour Agreements. If this does not resolve the ASB, it may utilise any legal remedy available which it deems appropriate in the circumstances.
17. The Council may close investigations in circumstances where it deems:
• a matter has been resolved; or
• it has completed its investigation and have exhausted all viable solutions; or
• mediation is a reasonable solution and has been offered to both parties, but has been declined by the complainant; or
• a complainant has failed to engage or respond to its requests.

Council tenants

18. The Policy also says where ASB involves a Council tenant it may take action, in its role as a registered social landlord, for breaches of the tenancy agreement. This may include putting a tenant on probation and taking possession of the property.

Community Trigger

19. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
20. The Council’s Policy says a Community Trigger can be raised if:
• a complainant has reported three separate incidents relating to the same problem in the past six months to the council, Police or their landlord; or
• a complainant has reported one incident or crime motivated by hate in the last six months and no action has been taken; or
• at least five people have made reports about the same problem in the past six months to the council police, or their landlord and no action was taken.

What happened

21. Mrs B lives with her family in a terraced property they own in the Council’s area. Their neighbour, Ms X, is a council tenant.
22. In 2022 Mrs B told the Council about issues she had with Ms X which she believed was ASB. She raised a Community Trigger request to the Council in March 2022. Her reported concerns included:
• noise from Ms X’s dog during the day and at night;
• Ms X’s children climbing through a window onto a porch roof overlooking Mrs B’s garden;
• an incident where Ms X had a party where she and her visitors were abusive towards Mrs B. The Police was called, but Mrs B felt not enough action was taken;
• Ms X’s son had frightened Mrs B’s son by watching and taking photos of her while she was in her boyfriends’ car. Mrs B reported the matter to the police;
• use of foul or abusive language; and
• an allegation was made to the Council’s Social Services and the police that Mrs B had been abusing her daughter. Mrs B believed Ms X made the allegation.
23. The Council considered Mrs B’s Community Trigger request but found it did not meet the threshold for an ASB case review. This was because she had not reported three separate incidents relating to the same problem in the past six months to the Council or the Police. However, it said it had passed her reported concerns to its ASB team to investigate and to arrange mediation to resolve the issues. It advised her she could appeal its decision or request a new Community Trigger in the future if issues were not resolved.
24. The Council visited Ms X, spoke with Mrs B and offered mediation. However, Mrs B declined taking part as she believed it was Ms X who had made the allegations against her to the Council’s Social Services.
25. Mrs B complained to the Council as she was not satisfied with the action it had taken in response to her concerns and said its Environmental Health officer had told her she just had to put up with Ms X’s dog barking.
26. In response the Council spoke with Mrs B and viewed and listened to her recordings, but it did not uphold her complaint. It told Mrs B:
• it understood it had been upsetting for her to be anonymously reported to Social Services. However, it had found no evidence she was a bad mother and Ms X’s denied making the allegation. No further action was taken on this matter and the concern was closed;
• it was not acceptable for Ms X’s son to be climbing on the porch roof and this was dangerous, and it apologised if its Environmental Health Officer had told her to put up with the dog barking, as this was not correct. It said its neighbourhood officer would discuss these issues with Ms X, which may include actions under the council tenancy if necessary;
• the police were investigating Mrs B’s concerns about Ms X’s party and the photographing of her daughter; and
• it had offered mediation to Mrs B and Ms X, but this had been declined and it had closed the ASB case.
27. Mrs B told the Council she had refused mediation due to the allegations made against her. She also said the police had visited her regarding use of CCTV cameras, and she raised further concerns about Ms X’s behaviour and smells from Mrs X’s ex-boyfriend smoking cannabis.
28. The Council told Mrs B it could not comment on who had made the anonymous allegations and matters the police were investigating. However, the Council had a duty to consider safeguarding concerns. It also said it had allocated an officer to investigate her concerns about a noise nuisance from Ms X’s unattended dog.
29. In Summer 2022, Mrs B asked the Council to consider her complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB under its stage two complaints process.
30. In the Council’s final complaint response, it told Mrs B it had discussed the complaint with her, considered her recordings and consulted with other departments. However, its view remained unchanged. It also explained:
• it had informed Ms X her son climbing on the porch roof was unacceptable and dangerous in Spring 2022. Ms X had told her son this was not acceptable behaviour;
• it had previously told Mrs B about its Noise App;
• there were historical issues of concerns since Ms X moved in three years ago, which the Council had dealt with. But Mrs B had provide no new information the would concern the council or induce it to take immediate action against Ms X; and
• it would be in the best interest of both Mrs B and Ms X to consider mediation to resolve their differences. This will allow them to share their views and concerns, and may result in a Good Neighbour Agreement. Both Mrs B and Ms X had since agreed to this and the Council would make the arrangements.
31. The Council discussed mediation with Mrs B and Ms X over the autumn. Mrs B asked for mediation to not be face-to-face, which the Council said it could not offer. She then agreed to face-to-face mediation but explained she would be away for a short while.
32. During the Autumn Mrs B and Ms X both raised concerns to the Council about each other’s behaviour which included foul language, name calling and loud music.
33. In late Autumn 2022, the Council was ready to set up the mediation, however, Ms X then declined to take part. The Council informed Mrs B and closed the mediation case.
34. Mrs B says she has continued to raise concerns about Ms X’s ASB to the Council throughout and has submitted evidence through the Council’s Noise App regarding noise from Ms X’s dog.
35. The Council said it considered Mrs B’s recordings and gave Ms X a warning for breach of her tenancy agreement. However, Ms X disputed it was her dog on the recording as it could have been from other dogs in the area and the recording did not show it was hers.
36. In early 2023, the Council told Mrs B it considered the evidence she provided but found the noise was not from Ms X’s dog. As no further evidence was provided it closed the noise complaint.
37. Mrs B has continued to report noise issues with Ms X’s dog. The Council has since accepted Ms X’s dog is causing a noise nuisance and it is currently considering further action against Ms X in its role as her landlord.

Analysis and findings

Council’s handling of Mrs B’s allegations against Ms X

38. Mrs B has reported several concerns about Ms X, her family or her visitors’ behaviour which has caused a nuisance and a poor neighbour relationship.
39. The Council has registered each of Mrs B’s concerns to determine whether her reports amounted to ASB and whether it should take any action.
40. I acknowledge the difficulties the Council had following Mrs B’s reports of ASB and noise nuisances. This is because Ms X also made allegations against Mrs B for similar behaviour, and some issues were investigated by the police.
41. I would expect the Council to consider each incident it received from Mrs B in line with the Council’s Policy. The evidence shows the Council have:
• taken statements from Mrs B and Mrs X;
• considered the information and evidence Mrs B shared;
• visited Ms X and the area; and
• considered allegations of threats, harassment, and unlawful parties. It advised Mrs B to report these to the Police.
42. While I understand Mrs B would like for the Council to have been more proactive in obtaining evidence against Ms X, it was not required to do so under its Policy. I have therefore not found fault in the process the Council followed to investigate the concerns it received.
43. The Council found it did not have enough evidence of ASB or a noise nuisance which would require the Council to take immediate action. However, it found the best way to resolve the issues was through mediation between Mrs B and Mrs X. This was in line with the Council’s Policy, I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.
44. Despite the Council’s offer of mediation in Spring and Autumn 2022, this did not take place as either Mrs B or Ms X declined the offer.
45. In late 2022, when Mrs B raised further concerns regarding Ms X’s dog barking, the Council agreed a nuisance was taking place and decided the best way to address the noise nuisance was through its role as Ms X’s landlord. However, based on the evidence it received, it did not find the noise to be a statutory noise nuisance which would require immediate action.
46. The evidence shows the Council considered the powers available to it. It is not for me to say which powers it should use; such decisions are for the Council to make. However, it appears appropriate to me for the Council to address the issues in its role as a Social Landlord when its mediation offer was declined.
47. The Council has since sent a warning to Ms X, and it is considering further action in its role as a Social Landlord following Mrs B’s further reports and evidence to the Council.
48. As the Council is addressing Mrs B’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance through its role as a Ms X’s Landlord, I cannot consider its actions. If Mrs B is not satisfied with the actions the Council has taken or may decide to take, she can bring her concerns to the attention of the Housing Ombudsman for its view on the actions, or lack of action, the Council has taken as a Registered Social Landlord.

Community Trigger

49. Mrs B raised a Community Trigger with the Council in Spring 2022, but the Council did not agree the threshold had been met. Based on the evidence available, the Council considered the information and reports it had received and reached its view. I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.
50. The Council also gave Mrs B the opportunity to appeal its decision at the time, which she did not do. It also told her she could raise a new Community Trigger should the issues continue, which Mrs B has not done. I have therefore not found fault in how the Council handled this process.

Council’s handling of allegations against Mrs B

51. The Council’s Policy says it will not share details of persons who makes anonymous reports of safeguarding concerns. I cannot therefore fault the Council for refusing to share details of who made the allegations with Mrs B.
52. I have also not found the Council at fault for considering the safeguarding reports against Mrs B. This is because once such allegations are made to the Council, it has a duty to consider whether a safeguarding enquiry should be started. The Council considered the allegations but decided there was no evidence Mrs B was in any way a bad mother. It therefore closed the safeguarding concern and informed Mrs B.
53. I understand the anonymous allegations against Mrs B for being abusive towards her daughter was distressing and worrying for her and the family. However, without fault by the Council, I cannot remedy the distress they experienced.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault. It followed its Anti-Social Behaviour Policy and reached decisions it was entitled to make. I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman