Summary: Ms B says the Council failed to act on antisocial behaviour from a neighbouring resident and failed to respond to her complaint. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the antisocial behaviour issues. However, the Council failed to keep Ms B up-to-date and respond to her correspondence and delayed responding to her complaint. An apology, payment to Ms B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained the Council:
• failed to act on antisocial behaviour committed by a neighbouring resident; and
• failed to respond to her complaint.
2. Ms B says the Council’s actions have led her tenants to suffer a terrifying and ongoing experience which has also caused her distress and led to her having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. Ms B has also experienced financial loss as one set of tenants left the property early due to the problems and her property has also been damaged.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 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)
6. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Ms B and the organisation 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

What should have happened

9. The Council’s noise and nuisance guidelines (the guidelines) say when dealing with noise and nuisance the Council tries to:
• act quickly to try to prevent an issue escalating;
• take a restorative approach whenever appropriate;
• remain aware of the informal and formal remedies available to both parties; and
• aim to avoid legal action when it can.
10. The guidelines say the Council needs permission to pass personal details to either party.
11. The guidelines refer to the involvement of environmental health officers and say an environmental health officer will get involved where there are more than five complaints in one month, as well as in any other cases requiring environmental health expertise.
12. The guidelines refer to the possibility of out of hours attendance by environmental health or residential security patrol officers.
13. The guidelines set out action the Council can take which includes:
• conversations;
• letters;
• acceptable behaviour agreements;
• civil injunctions;
• conditions of tenancy action;
• possession action;
• criminal behaviour orders;
• closure powers; and
• community triggers and community remedies.
14. The guidelines make clear evictions are always a last resort and will start with service of a notice.
15. For the community trigger process this says if the number of complaints reach an agreed threshold agencies have to work together to reach a solution.

What happened

16. Ms B owns a flat in a development and rents that flat out to tenants. The complaint concerns the action of another resident in the flats who is a Council tenant. Ms B and others have reported antisocial behaviour by the resident in question to the Council from at least 2020 onwards. I have investigated the period from January 2021. There have been several lengthy gaps in reports of antisocial behaviour since then. That includes the periods January 2021-June 2021, August 2021-January 2022 and from June 2022. The resident has not been living at the property since October 2022 but is expected to move back there soon.
17. In March 2022 Ms B put in a complaint and her representative asked the Council to raise a community trigger. The Council did not provide a formal response to the community trigger request, although it asked Ms B’s representative for some more information and there is no evidence that was provided. The Council responded to the complaint in October 2022.
18. The Council has taken various actions, which I cannot record here as they concern a third party. The Council has liaised with other organisations and taken part in network meetings to discuss options. The Council has also taken legal advice. Initial action taken by the Council did not result in a change of behaviour and the Council therefore served a notice of seeking possession on the resident in March 2022. That notice is still valid and can be actioned by the Council at any time. The Council intends to meet with the resident before she moves back to her property to remind her of what behaviour is expected of her as a tenant.

Analysis

19. Ms B says the Council failed to act on antisocial behaviour by a resident in a block of flats. Ms B says the antisocial behaviour has been going on for a long time and despite reporting that to the Council repeatedly it has failed to take any action to deal with the issues.
20. The first point to make here is the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the actions of the Council as landlord. I can therefore only comment on any action the Council has taken in relation to the environmental health issues created by the antisocial behaviour, rather than any breach of tenancy conditions by the resident.
21. I understand why Ms B is concerned when she has been reporting issues for a long time and the resident remains in the property with little evidence of a change of behaviour for those periods when she has been resident there. In those circumstances I understand why Ms B would believe the Council has not taken action. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council has taken a lot of action in response to those reports. I cannot provide Ms B with detail about what action the Council has taken as it relates to a third party (the resident complained of) and to share details of the action the Council has taken would breach the resident’s confidentiality. I can only say that having gone back through the documentary evidence from 2021 onwards I am satisfied the Council has sought to deal with the antisocial behaviour by the resident in a number of different ways. In doing so I am satisfied the Council has followed its guidance, which I refer to in paragraphs 9 and 13. As that guidance makes clear, more informal methods of dealing with the situation will be attempted before any more serious steps are considered.
22. I appreciate from Ms B’s point of view none of the action the Council has taken has resulted in a significant change in the resident’s behaviour. However, as the Council has confirmed to Ms B, its action has culminated in the serving a notice of seeking possession which remains in place should Ms B return to the property and continue to act antisocially. Given the detail I have seen about the action the Council has taken I could not say it had failed to address antisocial behaviour by the resident in question.
23. I do have some concerns though about the Council’s failure to respond to some of Ms B’s contacts. Clearly that has left her feeling the Council has failed to take action. As I have made clear, that is not the case. The issue is therefore with the lack of response to Ms B’s contacts rather than any lack of action on the Council’s part. The situation is complicated by the fact there is limited information the Council can share with Ms B given it relates to a third party. Nevertheless, I would expect the Council to have responded to Ms B’s communications and reassured her that action was being taken even if the Council could not share the specifics of that action. Failure to keep Ms B up-to-date is fault and has likely contributed to her feeling that the Council has not taken her concerns seriously.
24. In addition to that, it is clear Ms B’s representative asked the Council to raise a community trigger in March 2022. The Council accepts it did not issue a decision on that. That is fault. The Council says it asked Ms B’s representative for further information and he did not respond. While I understand that, the Council had its own records which would have showed whether Ms B had raised concerns a sufficient number of times to qualify under the community trigger process. I would have expected the Council to check those records and then give Ms B or her representative a decision about whether the criteria for the community trigger process was met. Failure to do that is fault. I do not consider it likely, on the balance of probability, that has resulted in a serious injustice to Ms B given the attempts the Council has made to address antisocial behaviour by the resident in question. However, it is unlikely to have reassured Ms B the Council was taking her concerns seriously given the other communication issues I refer to in the previous paragraph.
25. Ms B says the Council failed to respond to her complaint. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied Ms B put in a complaint on 28 March 2022. I have seen no evidence the Council responded to that complaint until October 2022. That delay is fault and is unlikely to have convinced Ms B the Council was treating her concerns seriously.
26. So, I have not found any fault in how the Council dealt with the various concerns Ms B raised about the actions of the resident in question. Where I have found fault is in the failure to keep Ms B up to date, respond to her correspondence, decide whether the criteria had been met for the community trigger process and in delaying responding to her complaint. I consider those failures have led Ms B to believe the Council was not treating her concerns seriously and led to her having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint.
27. For the reasons set out in the statement I do not consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the outcome for Ms B would have been different had those faults not occurred as I am satisfied the Council was dealing with the antisocial behaviour issues. Taking that into account I consider an appropriate remedy would be for the Council to apologise and pay Ms B £500 to recognise the time and trouble she has had to go to and the uncertainty she was left with when not being provided with any information or responses. I do not make any recommendation in terms of the Council now considering the request for a community trigger. That is because I understand the resident in question has not been living in the property for at least the last four months. It is therefore unlikely any community trigger consideration now would result in the Council taking action. I am reassured though the Council intends to meet with the resident before she moves back to her property and that the notice of seeking possession remains in place for the Council to action should further issues arise. I recommended though the Council carry out a training session for officers dealing with antisocial behaviour complaints to ensure they are aware of the community trigger process and what that involves. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Ms B and pay her £500.
29. Within two months of my decision the Council should carry out a training session for officers dealing with antisocial behaviour complaints to ensure they are aware of the community trigger process.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman