Summary: Mr B complains the Council has not done enough to tackle his neighbours’ antisocial behaviour and noise. He says that as a result his family are being harassed and victimised. There was no fault by the Council. It properly considered each complaint of noise and antisocial behaviour, and decided that there was no basis for it to take any formal action.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has failed to take action to deal with the antisocial behaviour of his neighbours who are council tenants. He says that as a result of the Council’s failings he has had to suffer regular and frequent antisocial behaviour and is being harassed and victimised by his neighbours.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints about how the Council dealt with his reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. I have not investigated the Council’s actions as landlord for the reasons set out at the end of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr B. I considered the information provided by the Council including the file documents, correspondence between the parties, photographs and audio recordings. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. The Council confirmed it had no comments on the draft. I did not receive a response from Mr B.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. Anti-social behaviour is behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It may include verbal and physical threats and harassment. (Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014)
7. Councils have a duty to take action to deal with anti-social behaviour and will work with partners, such as the police, to tackle it. (Section 17, Crime and Disorder Act 1998).
8. A council can discharge its duty in a number of ways. It will usually try to deal with anti-social behaviour informally but if necessary, it can use a range of enforcement powers including taking court action against the perpetrators.
9. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. (Environmental Protection Act 1990). Councils will gather and assess the evidence, typically considering factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Council officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.

What happened

10. Mr and Mrs B’s neighbours are council tenants and moved in next door in 2018. Between September 2018 and September 2019, Mr B complained to the Council that his neighbours had:
• lit bonfires in the garden;
• threatened and assaulted his wife by pushing her against a wall;
• harassed and intimidated his family, especially by staring at them for lengthy periods, filming and recording them;
• made excessive noise, mainly a child screaming at different times of the night and day and an argument and other noise by the adults;
• allowed their dog to bark and locked their small child out of the house;
• allowed cleaning chemicals to splash onto his property from the shared alley way; and
• installed CCTV which he suspected gave them views of his house and garden.
11. I have reviewed the Council’s records and its correspondence with Mr B and with the neighbours. I have reviewed the diary sheets and photographs Mr B submitted of the problems he was suffering, as well as recordings Mr B submitted of the neighbours’ dog barking. Mr B reported to the Police that his neighbours had assaulted his wife, and were deliberately trying to harass and intimidate them. I have reviewed the Council’s liaison with the Police.
12. The neighbours made counter allegations that Mr and Mrs B had:
• harassed and intimidated them;
• reported them to the RSPCA and Social Services maliciously;
• made vexatious complaints against them to the Council;
• aimed and fired a pellet gun toward them;
• drove at their wheelie bin while the neighbour was moving them; and
• installed a security light that shines into their home.
13. I have read the neighbours’ diary sheets, listened to audio recordings of some of their encounters and viewed photographs submitted.
14. The Council considered all the evidence Mr and Mrs B submitted. It decided that daytime noise of a child at the property screaming and a loud argument between adults in the early hours of the morning was ‘general living noise’. It told Mr and Mrs B that although it might disturb them, it was not a statutory nuisance and so the Council could not take any formal environmental protection action.
15. The Council liaised with the Police who had decided that there was insufficient evidence to support prosecution of the neighbours for assault or harassment. The Council considered whether it should take any action with regard to antisocial behaviour. It interviewed the neighbours with the police and having considered all the evidence decided that this was not sufficient to warrant court action.
16. The Council however recognised that the issues were causing problems for both parties and so offered both parties mediation, first when it investigated the earliest allegations and later when the problems persisted. Mr B decided that the situation had passed this point and declined the offer.
17. The Council had given permission for the neighbours to install the CCTV and arranged to check that these do not provide views of Mr B’s property. However, it noted the tenants had complained that Mr B had CCTV that looked into their garden.
18. Mr B complained to the Council that it had not done enough to deal with the neighbours’ antisocial behaviour. It responded but did not take further action. It explained that it had considered all the allegations but there was not enough evidence of antisocial behaviour for it to take formal action. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council causing Mr B an injustice?

19. It is clear from the evidence submitted to the Council by Mr B and the neighbours, that the relationship between the parties had broken down and every-day contact had become very tense.
20. However, there was no fault by the Council in how it dealt with Mr B’s complaints of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. It is clear from the Council’s files that it investigated every allegation and considered the available evidence properly. It addressed each allegation with the neighbours and considered its powers, it liaised properly with the Police conducting joint visits to interview the neighbours. The Council also kept Mr B informed of its actions and its decisions.
21. The Council had to consider the counter allegations made on the same basis as it considered those made by Mr B. The Council’s files show it was fair and even handed in this regard.
22. Having collected all the evidence it could, and properly considered this, it was open to the Council to decide there was no basis to take court action. It continued to deal with each contact and offered mediation. It was Mr B’s right to refuse this and he had reason to. However, there was not fault by the Council.
23. In terms of whether there was noise nuisance, the Council considered the time and frequency of the noise, as well as that a child’s noise is unlikely to be a statutory noise nuisance. There was no fault in how the Council decided there was no statutory noise nuisance.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have ended my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

25. I have not considered Mr B’s complaints about the Council’s actions as a landlord of the neighbours. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate a Council’s landlord functions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman