Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to carry out a commitment to repossess a flat rented by a neighbour who has caused long-standing disturbance to her. We find the Council has kept to its commitment, but that avoidable delays have contributed to the time taken for the repossession. These have caused injustice to Ms C as she has experienced an ongoing impact on her amenity, or quality of life, in her home. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Ms C’. She complains the Council has failed to carry out a commitment to repossess a flat that it rents to a neighbour (‘Ms X’). Ms X has caused disturbance to Ms C since moving into the property in 2019 with regular and prolonged shouting and banging of objects.
2. Ms C experiences distress from this disturbance, often during the daytime when she is trying to work. This has had 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Ms C’s complaint to the Ombudsman and further information she provided;
• information provided by the Council in reply to written enquiries;
• information gathered during a series of previous investigations against the Council and another London authority (where both properties are located); and
• relevant Ombudsman guidance including that on remedies. Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

7. I gave both Ms C and the Council a chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or any further evidence provided, before finalising the decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

8. Since around November 2019, Ms C has suffered disturbance from Ms X who lives in an adjacent flat. Ms C reports the nuisance as consisting of shouting, ranting and aggressive language along with banging 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.
9. At first Ms C made reports about the disturbance to the letting agent of the neighbouring flat. The agency told her ‘the Council’ let the flat to Ms X. Ms C understood this to be a reference to her local authority, which is a different London Borough.
10. In August 2021 Ms C complained to us about the actions of that authority. She said it had not done enough to investigate or resolve the disturbance she reported. It was only during that investigation that Ms C learnt the council responsible for housing Ms X was the London Borough of Islington.
11. In April 2022 we upheld Ms C’s complaint. We recommended that Ms C’s local authority contact LB Islington to agree a plan of action for tackling the disturbance she reported.
12. In August 2022, following those contacts, the Council agreed to take action to repossess the flat. To do so, it needed a Court order. It was in a position to go to Court from December 2022 onward.
13. However, it was not until May 2023 it applied to the Court. The Council housing service instructed its legal service in December 2022 and the Council says some ‘back and forth’ between the services followed.
14. The Court was due to hear the case at the end of September 2023. In preparing for the case the Council noted an earlier error which meant it could not continue. Correcting this error meant the Council could not then return to Court before December 2023.
15. The Council is now at the final stage of action before it can fully repossess the flat. This relies on a further Court hearing. It asked the Court to hasten that hearing but it refused. It has said it could be ‘several months’ therefore before the flat becomes empty.
16. While the Council’s case has been ongoing, Ms C has also remained in contact with her local authority reporting specific incidents of disturbance. I have seen records covering around a week in June 2023 when it visited Ms C on four occasions. I have also seen a letter sent to Ms C by her local authority in December, which summarised its records of a further nine reports she made in November 2023.
17. During the visits in June the Council heard some noise from Ms X’s flat on each occasion. It reported:

• one episode of screaming of short duration (‘less than a minute’);
• one episode of continuous shouting of at least two minutes;
• one episode of intermittent shouting;
• one occasion when it said any noise was not loud or a nuisance.

18. In its December letter, Ms C’s local authority said it was “unable to verify that the noise affecting you was ASB since the incidents you reported to us did not last long enough for us”.
19. Of the nine reports made by Ms C in November 2023, Ms C’s local authority said it had offered to visit on five occasions. At other times either no officer was on duty or the noise had stopped when Ms C reported it. But it said on each occasion it offered to visit again, Ms C told it the noise had stopped.

My findings

20. The Council is at fault for the time taken to progress its repossession of Ms X’s flat.
21. First, it has not provided a satisfactory account for why it took six months for it to apply to the Court – a necessary step in repossessing the flat. The Council knew of the long history of this case and past promises it had made to Ms C and officers from her local authority, that it would take this action. It also knew both authorities had let down Ms C in their earlier investigations and response to the disturbance she reported. In these circumstances, I do not consider it should have taken more than a month to take this next step in proceedings. So that is five months of avoidable delay.
22. Second, there was the error the Council noted shortly before the Court hearing in September 2023. I accept it acted with urgency to correct this and get the earliest possible date it could return to Court after that. But even so, the error added another three months to the time taken for the case to progress.
23. The injustice caused to Ms C is therefore that she has experienced further disturbance from Ms X for around eight months longer than would have been the case had the Council acted without fault.
24. In deciding how the Council should remedy this injustice I have taken account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. This says that where we consider that delay or inaction by the council has caused a demonstrable loss of amenity – by which we mean impact on a complainant’s quality of life – we will usually recommend a payment in the range of £100 to £500 a month. We will take account of the severity of the loss and the circumstances of the complainant.
25. In this case I consider a recommendation towards the lower end of the scale justified. This is after taking account of the evidence provided by Ms C’s local authority which has made attempts to witness the disturbance she experiences. It provides compelling evidence there is disturbance and when it occurs it will likely affect Ms C’s quality of life. However, the noise is also erratic and not always of a volume or duration that other enforcement action could be taken.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. The Council accepts the findings above. To remedy the injustice it has caused to Ms C, it has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. provide a further apology to Ms C for the delays in this case and the impact that has had on her; the apology will take account of section 3.2 in our guidance on remedies;
2. make a symbolic payment to Ms C of £1200; this represents the impact of eight months delay using a figure of £150 a month for the impact on Ms C’s amenity;
3. provide an update to Ms C (either direct or via its contact at Ms C’s local authority) at least once every six weeks moving forward and when the neighbouring flat becomes vacant, at which point updates can cease.
27. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman