Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding noise and antisocial behaviour within his building. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. We also cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has not taken sufficient action to address the noise and antisocial behaviour issues, which are significantly impacting his family's quality of life, particularly his children's education. He wants the Council to investigate and take steps to resolve the issue, ensuring a better environment for him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council considered reports of noise and antisocial behaviour from Mr X’s wife and referred the matter to its housing management and anti-social behaviour services. The Council explained that enforcement action depends on sufficient evidential support and that this threshold had not been met.
6. Upon Mr X wife’s request, the Council placed Mr X and his family on the housing transfer list. It explained that timescales for rehousing depend on property availability. It explained that medical priority could be reassessed if supporting medical evidence was provided. The Council advised the complainant to continue reporting incidents and to remain in contact with the Property Manager while the situation was monitored.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council was acting in its role as a social landlord when managing reports of noise between tenants. The Ombudsman cannot intervene in how a landlord balances competing tenant interests or replace the landlord’s judgement, where it has considered the reports and followed its procedures.
9. There is no evidence the Council failed to consider the reports, ignored relevant information, or acted outside its procedures.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and further investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We also cannot add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman