Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council failed to take action to deal with anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from an overcrowded property next door, which she believes is unlicensed. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the Council) failed to take effective action to deal with anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance from the overcrowded neighbouring property which she thinks is being operated as an unlicenced house in multiple occupation. This continues to cause Mrs B significant distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated events from January 2024, 12 months before Mrs B complained to us. Mrs B complained to us previously about a similar issue and was aware of service, so I consider it was reasonable for her to complain to us sooner if she wished us to investigate older events.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs)

7. An HMO is a property rented out by at least three people who are not from one household but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. Private landlords must obtain a licence to rent out a large HMO (all buildings or parts of buildings housing five or more people in two or more households). Some local authorities may also use their discretionary power under Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 to designate certain areas to be subject to additional licensing. This can require smaller HMOs in the designated area to be licensed.
8. Under Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004, local authorities can designate the whole or any part of its area as subject to selective licensing. This requires all privately rented property in that area to be licensed.

Council’s licensing schemes

9. In September 2019 in addition to the mandatory licensing scheme for HMOs, the Council introduced a borough-wide selective licensing scheme. This scheme ran for five years, closing in August 2024. In January 2025 the Council introduced an additional HMO licence for properties occupied by three or four people forming two or more households. In April 2025 it introduced a selective licensing scheme for all rented properties occupied by a single household.

What happened

Background

10. Mrs B had complained previously to us regarding concerns about a neighbouring property which was unlicenced. We found the Council had delayed in prosecuting the landlord. As a result of the complaint, the Council made a symbolic payment to Mrs B and agreed to give her six monthly updates on its progress with an ongoing investigation into the landlord.
11. Mrs B made a further complaint in 2022 which we sent back to the Council, and she complained again to the Council in October 2023.

Current complaint

12. On 25 June 2024 Mrs B made a formal complaint via her local councillor about too many people living in the neighbouring property. She alleged it was an HMO.
13. In July 2024 she reported furniture and waste in the garden. The Council visited and took photos of the rear garden which contained two mattresses.
14. The Council also replied to her formal complaint. It said the investigation into the landlord was ongoing, but it could not give any details due to data protection. It agreed to continue to give her six monthly updates by the case officer.
15. Mrs B responded the same day saying she was happy with the complaint response. The following day she emailed saying she was unhappy with the amount of people living in the property and the landlord was a rogue landlord. She made two further reports in August of an untidy, unkempt garden with mattresses, furniture and waste.
16. On 8 October 2024 the Council visited the property and noted the mattresses and furniture had been removed. On the same day Mrs B reported overcrowding in the property. On 27 November 2024 the Council visited the property but found no evidence that the property was overcrowded or being used as an HMO.
17. In January 2025 Mrs B complained again to us and we sent it back to the Council to investigate and respond to her. The Council visited the property again on 10 January 2025 and noted the mattresses had gone. It also noted a tent in the garden and a broken fence panel but neither of those issues were enforceable by the Council.
18. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint at stage two of its procedure on 17 February 2025: It apologised for not giving a six monthly update on the previous case and for any uncertainty this caused. It explained that the landlord had applied for a selective licence in August 2022. This resulted in a complex fraud investigation which was not completed by the time the scheme ended in August 2024. It confirmed there was no ongoing legal action.
19. Regarding the current situation, it said it was satisfied that the property was compliant with licensing requirements following the visit in July 2024 and there was no evidence it was operating as an HMO: it was occupied by four people forming one household. Its new licensing scheme was due to start in April 2025.
20. The Council said Mrs B had not made any reports of anti-social behaviour and it had responded effectively to the complaints about the garden within a reasonable timeframe.
21. Mrs B complained to us again. She has also continued to complain to the Council about an unkempt garden. The Council has revisited and is satisfied with the garden. It had also received an application for a selective license which it was processing.

Analysis

22. I understand Mrs B was upset by previous events at the property which we considered under the previous complaint and which the Council was investigating. These do not form part of this investigation.
23. However, in terms of the events since January 2024, I have not identified fault in the way the Council has responded to Mrs B’s complaints. The complaints have been about an unkempt garden with old mattresses and concerns about overcrowding in the property. The Council has investigated the situation on each occasion by visiting the property. It has ensured the garden has been tidied up and has not found any evidence to support Mrs B’s allegation that the property is overcrowded. It has recently received a selective licensing application which it is processing.
24. There is no evidence that Mrs B has complained about noise nuisance or anti-social behaviour during the period of my investigation. If Mrs B has experienced this more recently, she needs to make a new complaint to the Council to allow it to investigate the issues first.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman