Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to neighbour complaints by a council tenant. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his complaints about the behaviour of his neighbours who are also council tenants as he is. He says the Council sent a letter about the action it had taken which offended him and made him feel inadequate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X has been complaining about the behaviour of his neighbours since 2021. He made a previous complaint to us about the Council’s investigation of noise nuisance which we considered under case reference 23 000 528. In 2022 he and his neighbour signed a good neighbour agreement arranged by a mediation service. In July 2023 the Council wrote to him as the agreement was due to expire.
7. The letter informed Mr X that the Council had considered complaints he had made during the agreement period but that it did not consider them breaches which would require it to take action against the neighbour’s tenancy. The issue mainly related to the behaviour of the neighbour’s children which affected his own son’s vulnerability. The matter was dealt with by the Council as a tenancy matters and advice has been given to the neighbours but there are limits over what action can be taken over the behaviour of young children.
8. Mr X saw the advice about how to avoid confrontation between his son and the children as being inappropriate and intimidating. Thers is no evidence that this was other than advice intended to reduce the friction between neighbours. The Council gave similar advice about avoiding actions which would result in persistent barking by the neighbour’s dog. As both parties are Council tenants, we cannot investigate matters of tenancy management by the social housing landlord.
9. The Council also advised Mr X that his use of CCTV/drone coverage of his neighbour may be a breach of privacy which could result in a complaint to the Information Commissioner and/or criminal or civil proceedings against him. he believes this was intimidation by the Council to reduce his use of security devices. As it is not the Council which would instigate any proceedings resulting from this, I can only consider that the Council was simply making him aware of the facts.
10. The letter concluded by reminding Mr X that whilst he and his neighbour may submit logs about new complaint issues between them, it would not entertain repeat complaints about the same issues and that either party may be subject to the Council’s vexatious callers procedure if this took place. Mr X also believed this was an attempt to intimidate him and refusal to deal with his concerns.
11. Most councils have vexatious/persistent complainant procedures and it was not fault to warn Mr X that he (or his neighbours) could be considered under that procedure if they met the criteria.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to neighbour complaints by a council tenant. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman