Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s Anti-Social Behaviour complaints. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his reports of a neighbour playing loud music. He also said his neighbour was dealing drugs.
2. He said the Council has failed to respond to his complaint and he fears for his family. He wants the Council to investigate the property, and take action to stop the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In response to Mr X’s noise complaint the Council said it wrote to the neighbour, provided diary sheets to record the noise and issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW). It said if the measures put in place did not resolve the issue it would continue with enforcement action.
9. In response to non-compliance with the warning the Council served a Community Protection Notice (CPN) which instructed the tenant to stop playing loud music.
10. Mr X reported that the issues continued. The Council said Mr X declined to use a Noise Application which logs incidents of noise nuisance and the installation of noise monitoring equipment. The Council also offered to conduct a Noise Test between Mr X and his neighbour and encouraged Mr X to utilise the tools and support available. It explained it was required to provide evidence that would stand up to scrutiny in court to act on a breach of the CPN.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council took enforcement action by issuing a CPW followed by a CPN. When the Council continued to receive reports of noise nuisance it advised Mr X to use a Noise Application to record the incidents and offered to conduct a Noise test. These are appropriate actions given the ongoing reports of noise nuisance. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.
12. Mr X reported to the Council that his neighbour was dealing drugs. The Council addressed this issue as a social landlord. We have no remit to consider the Council’s actions in connection to its management of its social housing. 

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman