Summary: We find fault with the way the Council investigated when Mrs C reported incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour by her neighbour. We also find fault with the way the Council handled the complaint Mrs C’s daughter made on her behalf. This caused them both an injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs C. She says the Council failed to respond properly to reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour by her Mrs C’s neighbour, D.
2. She says the Council failed to properly investigate the issues and take action to stop it.
3. Miss B says her mother’s health and wellbeing has been seriously affected. Her mother is suffered anxiety, distress and significant sleep deprivation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Miss B and considered the information she provided with her complaint. I made enquiries with the Council and considered it response with relevant law and guidance.
8. Miss B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I carefully considered all the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Noise nuisance

9. Councils must look into complaints about noise that could be a statutory nuisance (covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990). The noise complained about might be loud music, barking dogs, noisy neighbours, rowdy pubs or noise from industrial, trade or business premises.
10. For a noise to count as a 'statutory nuisance' it must do one of the following:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premise; or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. Generally, the statutory nuisance will need to be witnessed by the Environmental Health Officer and he/she will come to an independent judgement. The process of determining what level of noise constitutes a nuisance can be quite subjective. The level of noise, its length, timing and location may be taken into consideration in deciding whether a nuisance has actually occurred.
12. If an officer decides a statutory nuisance is happening, or will happen in the future, councils must serve an abatement notice. This requires whoever is responsible to stop or restrict the noise. If someone does not comply with an abatement notice they can be prosecuted and fined.
13. Councils can decide to take informal action if the noise complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation. Councils should have a policy or procedure to explain what it will do.

Anti social behaviour (ASB)

14. Section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) as:
• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or
• conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
15. Ongoing ASB may need intervention by organisations such as councils, police, health and registered social landlords.

ASB council duties

16. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a general duty on councils to take action to combat ASB.
17. Councils will have a team to respond to and investigate complaints about ASB, liaising with the police and other agencies as necessary.
18. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014 introduced the community trigger to give victims and communities a say in how local agencies deal with ASB
19. The community trigger is a process that allows members of the community to ask the community safety partnership to review its responses to complaints of ASB.

What happened

20. Mrs C rents her property from the Council. Her neighbour, D, rents their flat from a private landlord. Mrs C says she has suffered years of noise nuisance, ASB and harassment from D.
21. Mrs C reported further problems to the Council’s community protection team throughout 2019. She kept log sheets for nine months and submitted them to the Council.
22. In April 2020 the community protection team referred the noise issue to the environmental health team and closed its case. An environmental health officer reviewed the recordings and log sheets. They said the Council previously investigated the noise issue in 2008. It did not find a statutory noise nuisance. It says it will not reinvestigate further because the noise was everyday living noise. It told Mrs C she could take private action in respect of the noise.
23. The community protection team told Mrs C it had spoken to D but they denied the allegation. It said the Council could not take further action because it did not have enough supporting evidence. It enclosed more log sheets for Mrs C to complete.
24. In June 2020 Miss B complained to the Council for failing to take action in respect of the evidence Mrs C submitted. She listed the issues she said she continued to experience from D.
25. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint in July 2020. It said:
• any action in relation to D was at the discretion of the landlord;
• noise monitoring equipment was previously installed but no statutory noise nuisance was found;
• Mrs C and D took out undertakings at court that have no end date. If the undertaking has been breached Mrs C needs to go back to court;
• the Council contacted D and their landlord about the issues;
• if the matters listed in the letter (June 2020) were continuing Mrs C should report it to the Police; and
• any delays in responding were because officers were working at home during the pandemic.
26. Miss B asked for her complaint to proceed to stage two of the Councils complaint process.
27. It responded in September 2020. It said the Council had taken every action available to it in the circumstances. It did not uphold the complaint.
28. Miss B was unhappy with the Council’s response. The Council provided a final response in October 2020. It refused to consider Miss B’s complaint at stage three of its complaint process. It said:

“I do not consider that further consideration by the Regulation and Review Committee would produce a demonstrably different outcome, therefore, I have taken the decision not to progress your complaint to Committee”.

29. It referred Miss B to the Housing Ombudsman.
30. Miss B was unhappy with the Council’s responses and complained to us.

My findings

Noise issues

31. I do not find fault with the way the Council investigated the noise issues Miss B and Mrs C reported.
32. Miss B and Mrs C reported a variety of issues that included allegations of noise nuisance, harassment and anti-social behaviour. The community protection team initially considered the information and log sheets. It referred the noise issues to the environmental health team in April 2020.
33. The Council previously installed sound monitoring equipment at Mrs C’s. It did not find a statutory nuisance and said the noise was everyday living noise. In the recent investigation it says it reviewed the latest recordings and logs. It decided the noises were no different to those previously investigated. It told Mrs C she could consider private court action about the noise, but it would not take any action.
34. I looked at the way the Council made its decision not to take any further action in respect of the noise part of the complaint. Where there is no fault in the way a decision is made we would not question the professional judgement of the decision maker.

Harassment and Anti-Social Behaviour issues

35. I find fault with the way the Council investigated the other issues Miss B and Mrs C reported.
36. When the community protection team referred the complaint to the environmental health team for the noise issues it closed its case. But Mrs C was still reporting a variety of other issues. In her June 2020 letter she lists several allegations of harassment and ASB. In its complaint response the Council told Mrs C to report the other issues to the police. Mrs C says the police sent her back to the community protection team.
37. The Council has a duty in relation to antisocial behaviour and it should work with other agencies when necessary. There will be cases where the reports contain a crossover of alleged incidents of harassment and ASB. I asked the Council for evidence of its correspondence with the police about this case. It said:

“We can find no evidence that the Officer handling Mrs C’s case involved Police in this matter. This would not be unusual in a noise case”.

38. But this was not only a noise case it involved allegations of other incidents which fell outside of the noise complaint.
39. I also asked the Council to comment on the issues Miss B raised in her letter sent in June 2020. It said:

“The last recorded note regarding this case was documented on our ASB system Streetwise on 20 April 2020. Letter dated 20 June 2020 was sent to and officer who unfortunately, no longer works for the Authority. There is no record of receipt for that letter on our system Streetwise. Therefore, unfortunately we cannot comment on what course of action they took after receipt of the Letter as there is no record”.

40. The Council referred to this letter in its final response in October 2020. Therefore, the Council failed to properly record the allegations Miss B reported in June 2020 and failed to take any action in respect of them. This is fault.
41. The Council’s ASB policy has information about how the Council will:
• provide victim care;
• work in partnership with other agencies;
• manage risk; and
• address cross tenure issues.
42. If the Council felt the harassment and ASB issues should have been referred to the police, it should have taken responsibility for having those discussions. Instead, it left Mrs C and Miss B feeling as though they were being passed between agencies and neither were taking responsibility for the issues they reported.
43. I find fault with the Council for failing to respond to Mrs C’s reports as it sets out in its policy. It did not provide evidence in respect of any of the above points.
44. This fault caused Mrs C distress and frustration. She is left with uncertainty about how the issues she reported were investigated by the Council.
45. The Council should reopen its investigation and reconsider all the information it has. It should be able to evidence its decision making about the case in line with its ASB policy and procedure.

Complaint handling

46. I find fault with the Council for refusing to allow the complaint to progress to stage three for the reasons given in paragraph 28. In its complaints procedure the Council says it will only refuse stage three in a limited number of cases and subject to several safeguards. This case did not meet the criteria so early referral to the Ombudsman without completing stage three appears to be fault.
47. The Council also incorrectly referred Miss B to the Housing Ombudsman instead of us.
48. The Council should have told Miss B how to make a referral to the Community Trigger process for consideration. This option is explained in the Council’s ASB policy, but it failed to tell Miss B about this process.
49. These faults caused Miss B an injustice. She experienced the time and trouble of pursuing the complaint and bringing it to us. The Council denied her the opportunity to have their case heard by its stage three committee. This was another opportunity for the Council to resolve the complaint itself.

Agreed action

50. Within one month of my final decision the Council agrees to:
• Pay Mrs C £200 for the distress it caused her.
• Pay Miss B £150 for her time and trouble.
• Reopen its community protection team (Streetwise) case and reconsider its investigation into the allegations of ASB by correctly applying its policy and procedure.
• Provide Miss B and Mrs C with information about the Community Trigger process.
51. Within two months of my final decision the Council agrees to:
• Remind its complaints staff of its policy for when a case should be referred to the Ombudsman without completing stage three.
• Remind relevant staff of the jurisdictional differences between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
• Review how it informs relevant complainants of their right to request a review via the Community Trigger process.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman