Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to take sufficient action to help tackle disturbance she is caused by a neighbour in an adjacent flat. This followed the Council having agreed in April 2022 to undertake a review of the case following an earlier investigation by this office. We upheld the complaint, finding fault in how the Council carried out aspects of the review. We found this caused Ms C further avoidable distress. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the actions it has agreed to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Ms C’. She complains the Council has failed to take sufficient action to help tackle disturbance she is caused by a neighbour in an adjacent flat. This follows the Council having agreed in April 2022 to undertake a review of the case following an earlier investigation by this office.
2. Ms C says as a result she continues to experience regular disturbance from her neighbour in the form of shouting and the banging of objects, often during the daytime when she is trying to work. The disturbance causes distress and has an ongoing impact on Ms C’s health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. 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

6. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Ms C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and further information she provided;
• information about the Council’s policies to tackle noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour available on its website;
• information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• information gathered in the course of a linked investigation against the London Borough of Islington (LB Islington);
• relevant law and Government guidance as referred to in the text below; and
• relevant Ombudsman guidance including that on remedies and good administrative practice (both available on our website).

7. Ms C and the Council both had chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any response they made to the draft decision before deciding to complete my investigation and issue this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council powers to tackle noise nuisance

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. A statutory nuisance can include noise from residential premises.
9. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

10. There is no fixed point at which a noise becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an environmental health officer) to gather evidence. This may include asking the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits.
11. Once the evidence-gathering process is complete, the environmental health officer(s) will assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officer(s) will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
12. Councils can take formal action through the Courts to deal with statutory nuisances. But a council can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing disturbance but is not a statutory nuisance. For example, they may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.
13. Caselaw has established that a council may take action for statutory nuisance, even when the nuisance arises involuntarily as a result of a person’s disability. This is if a council can show that taking such action, even though discriminatory, is in pursuit of a legitimate aim which can include protecting the health and amenity of neighbours (see R(Fisher) v Durham County Council [2020] EWCH 1277 (Admin)).

Council powers to tackle anti-social behaviour

14. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
15. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• as a planning matter, where the complaint is about an inappropriate use of a building or facility;
• as a licensing matter, where the complaint is about a licensed premises, such as a pub or nightclub;
• as part of their duties as a social landlord, where the alleged perpetrator is a council tenant; or
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

16. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 also introduced a mechanism to review the handling of complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB). This is 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.
17. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.

Council Policies

18. On its website the Council advises people to contact it if they are “currently experiencing excessive and persistent noise from a residential or commercial premises, that is significantly interfering with the normal use and enjoyment of your home”.
19. It explains the definition of statutory nuisance as I have set it out above. The Council also lists types of noise it can or cannot deal with. It says a statutory nuisance cannot cover noise which is “generated from daily activities” or “shouting, raised voices, arguments, laughing”. It suggests that complaints about shouting, laughing etc may be reported as anti-social behaviour (ASB) instead.
20. The Council’s policy on tackling ASB says this is behaviour that can affect your quality of life and peaceful enjoyment of your home. It can include “behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”. The website provides some examples of behaviours it can and cannot investigate, examples of behaviours which should be reported to the police and a link to the page explaining its noise policy.
21. The website does not detail what powers the Council has to tackle anti-social behaviour or explain how cases will be investigated by it. Although it does provide a link to its Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (CMARAC). The Council describes this as a “partnership meeting where adults who present a high risk or vulnerability (with an ASB element) within the community are discussed, managed or signposted”.
22. The Council also has a page on its website which explains the ‘community trigger’. The Council says “the process is designed to make sure that no one suffering the effects of ASB falls through the net and that agencies come together to take a joined up, problem solving approach to find a solution. We want to make sure that everything that can be done is being done.” The trigger process is open to anyone who has reported ASB to the Council at least three times in the previous six months.
23. Where a case meets the community trigger criteria, the Council will refer it to the Partnership Problem Solving Group (PPSG). This includes officers from the Police, Haringey Community Safety and Enforcement Services, Housing Improvement Team, Homes for Haringey and Victim Support.
24. The Council says “core partners of the PPSG will review whether any actions that have been taken in response to the issues you have reported have been adequate and if necessary, make recommendations on what further actions should be taken. The review will take place within 28 days of the threshold decision being made.” The PPSG may recommend further action is taken. It will then send the person requesting the review an action plan with timescales and updates.

Background to this investigation

25. Since around November 2019, Ms C has suffered disturbance from a neighbour who lives in an adjacent flat (who I will call ‘Ms X’). Ms C reports the nuisance as consisting of shouting, ranting and aggressive language along with the banging of objects that can last for up to several hours at a time. Ms C believes Ms X is nearly always alone when these incidents take place. She also believes the behaviour and content of the shouting may be illustrative of Ms X being vulnerable and having unmet mental health needs.
26. Initially Ms C made reports about the disturbance to the letting agent of the neighbouring flat. The agent told Ms C the flat was let by ‘the Council’. It was not until we investigated a complaint from Ms C in 2022, that she learnt the council concerned was not the London Borough of Haringey (‘the Council’ in this case) but LB Islington.
27. Ms C was initially told by the agent Ms X would be moving away. But when, by November 2020 this had not happened, she contacted the Council and asked for its help. Our previous investigation went on to consider the Council’s actions between November 2020 and April 2022.
28. We found a number of faults.

• That in November 2020 the Council had failed to follow up on a statement that it would work with the letting agent to try and address the disturbance reported by Ms C.
• That it had been wrong when, after March 2021, it told Ms C it had no legal powers to try and prevent the noise she reported and of which she had made recordings. We noted the Council said it could not prevent ‘normal domestic noise’ but we considered the disturbance Ms C reported clearly went beyond that.
• That it had failed to sufficiently liaise with LB Islington. While it made some contact with that authority the Council did not follow up on that contact, meaning any liaison was ineffective.
• It had failed to undertake any systemic analysis of the disturbance Ms C reported. No attempts were made by officers to visit her flat and witness first-hand the disturbance. It had not offered to fit any noise monitoring equipment and had made no attempt to contact Ms X directly.
• Its communications with Ms C and her representative were poor. For example, it did not tell them that it was not responsible for letting the neighbouring flat to Ms X. Also, it did not respond to multiple reports of disturbance Ms C made via its ‘noise app’. In June 2021 the Council had passed the case to officers responsible for tackling ASB – but it did not explain this to Ms C.
• The records of that ASB investigation were limited meaning we could not identify what that investigation consisted of or what it found;
• That its replies to complaints were poor. At one point the Council said it would refer Ms C’s case to its CMARAC. But it did not explain what this was and it did not do so (at the time there was no information about the CMARAC on its website).

29. We considered these faults had caused Ms C injustice. This was in the form of a lack of service. We could not say that but for the faults, the Council could have definitively acted in a way that lessened Ms C’s distress from the actions of Ms X. But we considered her distress might still have been lessened if the Council had:
• begun a systematic investigation into the disturbance she reported;
• made contact or followed up its contact with LB Islington;
• made contact with Ms X;
• taken the case to its CMARAC;
• or some combination of the above.
30. The Council accepted these findings. It agreed to apologise to Ms C and make a symbolic payment to her to reflect the injustice caused. It also agreed to carry out a review of Ms C’s case. Our decision said the review “should take account of the faults found in this case”. We said the Council “should appoint a senior officer, not previously involved in the events covered by this complaint to oversee it. It must draw up a plan of action, to be shared with Ms C, that will explain how the Council will go about investigating the reports of disturbance she makes and seeking to resolve the problems she reports. It must consider if there is any formal or informal action it can take to help resolve the disturbance she reports.”
31. We said we would not be prescriptive about what the plan of action should contain. But as a minimum, we expected it to contain commitments:

• to review the evidence the Council held about the disturbance caused to Ms C;
• to consider what steps it could take to gather further evidence if needed; for example, by witnessing the disturbance (ideally in person);
• to renew its efforts to contact LB Islington to find out if there was any prospect of re-housing Ms X elsewhere, given this had been discussed previously;
• to consider the case for taking Ms C’s case to the CMARAC; including under the community trigger process (the Council having told us the CMARAC had a responsibility for considering ‘community trigger’ cases).

The Council’s review

32. The Council appointed a senior Environmental Health Officer to carry out the review, who did not have previous involvement in the case (‘the reviewing officer’). Within 20 working days of our previous decision the reviewing officer sent Ms C a plan of action for how they would conduct the review. The plan identified five steps the officer would take:

• first, they would raise the case with LB Islington to obtain background information on Ms X and request a meeting to explore ‘options for action’;
• second, they would aim to visit Ms X and try and engage with her to discuss the reports made by Ms C and see if they could establish what additional needs she had;
• third, they would look to convene a multi-agency meeting involving officers from both councils, the “NHS and others”;
• fourth, they would conduct a joint visit to Ms C’s property to try and witness the disturbance first-hand;
• fifth, they would complete a review of the case – aiming to do so within three months.

33. I gathered information about the Council’s actions in respect of each of these.

Communications with LB Islington

34. Within days of sending the action plan to Ms C, the reviewing officer contacted a housing officer at LB Islington Council with whom it communicated in 2021. The LB Islington officer referred the reviewing officer to a colleague and when that colleague did not respond to messages the reviewing officer made further enquiries with LB Islington. After several emails and phone calls, the reviewing officer was contacted by a different housing officer from LB Islington at the end of May 2022.
35. During June 2022 there was discussion about whether Ms X’s case should be referred to LB Islington’s CMARAC. But in early July 2022 LB Islington told the Council the case did not meet its referral criteria. It said this was because “the support services who are available only operate within the Islington borough and this property is out of borough”. But LB Islington did say a named housing officer would be in contact with the Council’s reviewing officer.
36. At the end of July 2022, the reviewing officer had not been contacted further, so they chased LB Islington for an update. Their emails referred to wanting to ‘hand over’ the case to that authority. The reviewing officer said they had given some contact details for officers at LB Islington to Ms C. They had “requested she contact you directly to progress this. There is little else Haringey can do at this point although we are happy to assist you to gather evidence if needed”.
37. In early August 2022, LB Islington provided an update. It explained recent efforts it had made to engage with Ms X. It also explained efforts it had made to re-house her. Separately, another officer from LB Islington said it would appear appropriate for the Council to consider Ms X’s case at its own CMARAC.
38. There were no further communications between the two authorities after this time.

Contacts with Ms X

39. At the end of May 2022, the reviewing officer telephoned Ms X. She spoke to the reviewing officer for some time but did not engage with the officer when asked about reports of nuisance. She also declined to meet with them.

Pursuing a multi-agency meeting

40. In August 2022 the reviewing officer wrote to a more senior officer in the Council saying: “I think it would be helpful to convene a multiagency meeting as soon as possible (to include housing, ASB, NHS from both authorities) so we can get some clarity about what can be done to address the noise complaints […] and agree joint action going forward”. In response the senior officer said they would want to know more about the position of LB Islington before agreeing to this. There was no further discussion of a multi-agency meeting after this date.
41. Separately the Council says that on four occasions, including in August and September 2022 it took advice from its ASB and Enforcement Manager who assesses whether cases should go to its CMARAC. Their view was the case did not meet the threshold to be considered by the Council’s CMARAC.
42. In comments about why no multi-agency meeting has taken place, the Council has pointed to enquiries made with agencies outside the Council by itself and LB Islington. Also that it considered in August 2022 a resolution to the problems Ms C reports was ‘imminent’ given what it was told by LB Islington.

Attempts to witness the noise

43. In exchanges in May 2022 the reviewing officer told Ms C they would like to visit when the noise was ongoing. They noted Ms C often reported disturbance in the day and so the officer suggested Ms C send an email when noise occurred. They would then hope to visit. Later that month Ms C sent the officer an email saying “today has been a particularly bad day so far, with shouting all morning and it's escalated as the day has gone on”. She suggested the reviewing officer visit in a couple of days if this pattern of noise continued. In response the reviewing officer said they would call Ms C, but it is not recorded what happened next.
44. Towards late June Ms C sent an email to the reviewing officer as noise occurred. She sent an email at around 11:30am saying it was a “particularly bad day in terms of noise disturbance”. Ms C said Ms X had been shouting since 6:30am and she could hear her very loudly. She asked if the reviewing officer could visit that day. Ms C received no reply to this email. Ms C has provided an itemised phone bill which shows she also tried to call that day. It later transpired the reviewing officer was on leave.
45. A few days later Ms C reported she was again experiencing disturbance and it had been “dreadful” the day before. Ms C did not ask the reviewing officer to visit that day, but over the following two days if they were available. The reviewing officer acknowledged the email and apologised for missing the report a few days earlier. They agreed Ms C should call if the noise was bad over the next two days.
46. In early July Ms C sent another email when noise was ongoing. But she did not request a visit, saying she was shortly going out.
47. In late July Ms C sent the reviewing officer an email saying, “I am sitting here typing through yet another morning of awful noise disturbance”. The reviewing officer replied later the same day apologising they had been out of the office when Ms C made contact. In a subsequent exchange the reviewing officer said they were “always prepared to attend to assess the noise first-hand as per my offers in the past and this has not changed”.
48. In early August 2022 the reviewing officer reiterated that message. But later the same day, the officer sent a second message saying they were ‘handing over’ the case to LB Islington (the same day it had sent the Council the emails referred to at paragraphs 36 above). Their email also advised Ms C to continue to log incidents. And it gave her an alternative email contact address – a generic email that would be monitored by a duty officer. The reviewing officer sent an internal email that same day asking whoever was on duty to be vigilant to any contacts from Ms C over the next three weeks.
49. On the following day, Ms C twice called the reviewing officer and sent them an email around 1.30pm advising noise was ongoing. Although an hour later she reported it had stopped.
50. In mid-September the Council contacted Ms C. She sent an email to the reviewing officer saying she had experienced intermittent noise over the previous week. The reviewing officer gave Ms C details of the duty officer for the next two days. It also called her the following day and recorded Ms C saying matters were quiet at that time.

Outcome of the review

51. In November 2022 the Council concluded its review. It went over its action plan and said that it understood Ms C would be contacted by LB Islington. It said it had given contact details to facilitate a visit but “to date we have not been able to assess the noise in person because we were unable to visit when you reported the noise occurring or the noise was off by the time a visit could be made”. And that at the end of July 2022 it had agreed it would “continue to remain in touch, being happy to assist with visits to assess noise where we could”.
52. The letter concluded: “Whilst we cannot take action to prevent residents shouting or talking loudly we said we would be willing to visit you to assess the noise and confirm if it was excessive, our aim being to pass this information on to Islington Council for action. To date we have not witnessed the noise you described and therefore cannot take any further action in respect of this matter.”

My findings

53. I find no fault in the actions taken by the Council when it first began its review into Ms C’s case. I find it made repeated efforts to contact LB Islington and that persistence was rewarded to the extent that authority began giving greater consideration to Ms X’s case. I find this in turn led that authority to make efforts to re-house Ms X.
54. I also recognise that as part of its review, the Council made efforts to try and witness the disturbance Ms C reports. This would be a pre-requisite if it was to take any formal action against Ms X to tackle the disturbance caused to Ms C. It would also assist in its liaison with LB Islington. I consider it is partly bad luck the Council did not visit Ms C at the time disturbance occured, because the reviewing officer and Ms C’s availability did not always coincide.
55. But despite the above, I have concerns about several aspects of the review.
56. First, it is important to stress the Council cannot delegate its statutory responsibilities to another Council. I do not consider it was open to it therefore to ‘hand over’ Ms C’s case to LB Islington. That authority has no statutory authority to investigate noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour within the Council’s area. And while LB Islington has engaged with the Council and has its own responsibilities as housing provider to Ms X - those factors do not remove the statutory duties on the Council. For so long as Ms X remains living next door to Ms C, and for as long as Ms C reports Ms X’s behaviour disturbing her, the Council must consider if there is any action it can take to try and prevent that disturbance.
57. Second, that leads me to consider in more detail the Council’s efforts to witness the disturbance reported by Ms C since May 2022. I reiterate that I recognise the Council has made efforts in this regard. But the facts of the case also show it missed opportunities when Ms C was attempting to contact it as noise was ongoing. This was in the way it told her to, by direct communication with the reviewing officer.
58. I question if more could have been done at the outset to establish a more robust way for Ms C to report the disturbance with a view to it being witnessed. For example, through giving her the alternative contact details for a duty officer when the reviewing officer was unavailable and especially when they were on leave (of which Ms C was clearly unaware).
59. Third, I also consider the Council could have done more to communicate with Ms X. I recognise she did not engage with the reviewing officer on the telephone call. But this did not prevent the Council following up its communication in writing. It would be standard practice in both noise and ASB investigations to advise the alleged perpetrator of complaints made about their behaviour and potential sanctions. While it is questionable what impact such contact would have had, the Council should still have explored this option.
60. Fourth, while I would find no fault in the Council’s liaison with LB Islington up to August 2022, thereafter communications stopped. I can see no reason for this. The Council received no assurance from LB Islington that it would be in direct communications with Ms C (and it has not been). And while it appeared there were ongoing efforts to re-house Ms X these had not reached fruition in August (and they still have not). I reiterate the Council cannot delegate its powers to investigate noise or ASB to another Council.
61. Fifth, I am disappointed more was not done to try and take a more holistic view of Ms C’s reports through a meeting bringing together those with the potential ability to help resolve this matter. I accept that Ms X’s case did not meet the threshold for its CMARAC. But this did not prevent the option of an ad-hoc multi-agency meeting being pursued, or at the least a meeting of officers from both councils. Or a referral to the PPSG, given that Ms X’s case may well have met the threshold for the ‘community trigger’ had she asked for this.
62. Sixth, I considered the final email giving the outcome of the review to Ms C potentially misleading. The Council referred to being unable to take action to prevent shouting yet also referred to the concept of the shouting possibly being ‘excessive’. This leads me to reflect back on our findings when Ms C previously complained. The Council is right to say that it cannot take action to prevent everyday household noise, which might include shouting. But what Ms C has reported – because of its volume, duration, and content – appears far from ‘everyday’.
63. On its website the Council recognises the value of the community trigger as a way of taking a “joined up, problem solving approach” when someone is the persistent victim of ASB. But the trigger is a safety net. The Council should always be taking a joined up, problem solving approach if it receives reports of ongoing disturbance in the way reported by Ms C. The outcome of the review suggested the Council was not taking this approach.
64. Individually I do not consider all these concerns would justify a further finding of fault. But cumulatively, I consider they do. Because they combined to deliver an incomplete review.
65. The injustice caused to Ms C on this occasion was that of further distress. She has continuing uncertainty about whether, but for these faults, the Council could take action to prevent the disturbance she is caused by Ms X. It should also not be forgotten what led us to recommend this review. Ms C was let down by the Council in the past. That she has been let down again, even though not as badly as before, has undone some of the good work the Council did in the early stages of the review when it was in regular contact with her.

Back to top

Agreed action

Personal remedy

66. The Council accepts these findings. While it may be the case that LB Islington will solve the problems reported by Ms C, neither she nor the Council can assume this to be the case. So, within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint it will:
1. provide a further apology to Ms C accepting the findings of this investigation;
2. pay Ms C a further symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of her distress.
67. Further, within 20 working days of this investigation the Council will:
1. re-open a line of communication with LB Islington and look to establish at least four-weekly communications with that authority to ascertain the latest position in respect of any action it is taking in respect of Ms X;
2. Ms C should then receive a four-weekly update accordingly;
3. provide Ms C with an up-to-date contact email and telephone number for reporting any disturbance contemporaneously.
68. If, after three months:

• Ms C has continued to report further disturbance; and
• the Council (having made its best efforts to witness it), understands the disturbance to be ongoing;
• will take this case to an appropriate forum such as the PPSG to consider how it can try to resolve the problems she reports.

Service improvement recommendation

69. I remain concerned the Council website does not explain what legal powers the Council has to tackle ASB. The Council has agreed that within three months of this decision it will update its website to include information on these powers and what steps are potentially available to it.
70. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

71. For reasons set out above I have upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms C. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman