Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s housing team and anti-social behaviour team. He said the Council is trying to stop him finding a suitable new home and is failing to deal with ongoing anti-social behaviour where he lives. The Ombudsman did not find evidence of fault in the way the Council managed Mr X’s housing application or investigated anti-social behaviour.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s housing team and anti-social behaviour team. He said the Council is trying to stop him finding a suitable new home and is failing to deal with ongoing anti-social behaviour where he lives.
2. Specifically, Mr X complained the Council:
1. Wrongly restricted his contact after relying on false statements from its staff.
2. Failed to send a letter, as agreed, confirming his housing application and priority would remain live if he accepted a temporary property.
3. Stopped a discretionary housing payment without telling him and then tried to evict him when he got into rent arrears.
4. Failed to carry out repairs at his property.
5. Revealed personal information about him to his neighbours without permission.
6. Failed to take account of his medical needs properly or fully.
7. Manipulated his housing list so that eligible properties were not shown.
8. Wrongly blocked some of his housing bids without consulting him.
9. Refused to investigate recent reports of anti-social behaviour or take action against his neighbours.
3. Mr X suffered distress and frustration as a result of the lack of action taken by the Council. He wants priority to bid for older people’s sheltered housing. He also wants the Council to take action against his neighbours.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated complaints f) to i) above.
5. I have not investigated complaints a) to c) as they are old complaints or have already been addressed. Complaint d) is for the Housing Ombudsman and is outside our jurisdiction. The Information Commissioner is better placed to consider complaint e).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
7. 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

8. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council, including its response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s Lettings Policy (2019).
• The Council’s Summary of Policy and Procedures for dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour (July 2012).
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s Lettings Policy

10. The Council allocates its housing according to its Letting Policy. The Council places housing applications into one of four bands according to an applicant’s housing needs. People in Band A have an urgent need to be rehoused.
11. In some circumstances the Council recognises a cumulative need where an applicant has more than one assessed need. If someone has more than one assessed need in Band A their cumulative need would result in Band A+. Band A+ is the highest priority the Council can award.
12. Once an applicant is given a priority band, they can bid on homes advertised by the Council. The Council advertises homes according to the priority band of the applicant.
13. In some cases, the Council will agree to identify a home for an applicant and offer it to them direct without advertising it. This is known as a direct let. The Council will normally make one reasonable offer to an applicant eligible for a direct let. Where possible, a direct let offer will consider an applicants’ preferences. In some cases, this will not be possible, however.
14. Applicants applying for older people’s sheltered housing must show that have care and support needs, such as:
• age related frailty
• physical and mental health issues
• multiple health problems that mean the individual needs support
• sensory impairment
• loneliness and isolation or safety and security
• current and future ability to utilise the support service.
15. The Council records applicants housing need and any offers of accommodation on a computer system.

Anti-social behaviour

16. The Council can investigate any form of anti-social behaviour (ASB), including abuse, intimidation, harassment, and vehicle related nuisance.
17. If it investigates ASB, the Council can take action, including getting court banning orders, working with the police to prosecute, or issuing tenancy warnings to council tenants.
18. The Council will visit both the victim and alleged perpetrator to discuss the allegations. It will also look to contact any witnesses.
19. The Council cannot take action for everyday disagreements, like boundary or parking disputes. It will not keep a case open when it is not possible to take further action.

Back to top

What happened

20. Mr X is a Council tenant. He has serious and complex physical and mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by ASB. This means he is very sensitive to noise and fearful when in contact with other people.
21. Mr X has had ongoing problems with the neighbours at his current home for several years. The Council has previously investigated Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. His complaints have also been the subject of a previous Ombudsman investigation.
22. Because of the anti-social behaviour Mr X has experienced, he wants to move to another Council home in a quieter area. The Council acknowledged this and assessed Mr X as statutorily homeless.
23. Mr X blames the Council for his PTSD because it failed to take action against his neighbours or secure him a move. He feels the Council deliberately prevents him from moving to another Council property so he will take up a private tenancy.
24. Mr X’s daughter complained to the Council on his behalf on 3 March 2020. Most of the complaints were about long-standing issues, or ones the Ombudsman has already investigated. The complaints relevant to my investigation were:
• The Council failed to address ASB.
• The Council ignored some of Mr X’s bids.
• Eligible properties were not appearing on Mr X’s personal housing list.
• Mr X’s doctor thought living around older people is the best option.
• The Council was only offering properties in areas where Mr X does not want to live.
25. The Council responded to the complaint on 8 April 2020. It said its ASB team opened several cases which were investigated and closed. A case was open at that time and an officer was discussing with Mr X what support was available. The Council said there was no block on Mr X’s housing application, and he is able to make bids. The Council has offered Mr X suitable properties, but he declined them. The Council confirmed Mr X’s priority would remain the same, and he was not eligible for older people’s sheltered housing.
26. Mr X was unhappy with the response. His daughter told the Council the main focus of the complaint was the barriers the Council placed in front of Mr X, preventing him from moving. He sought is a move to a suitable home, given his PTSD.
27. The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 10 July 2020. It said there was a difference of opinion about what had taken place. It would not reinvestigate historic complaints and said an officer was in touch with Mr X about his current allegations of ASB. It said the ASB team was committed to working with Mr X and offered noise monitoring equipment (NME). Regarding Mr X’s housing priority, the Council said Mr X could bid for older people’s housing, but it will only consider his application if no older applicants bid. It confirmed it was aware of his physical and mental health conditions, and this was reflected in his level of priority, but he is not eligible for older people’s sheltered housing because he has no applicable care and support needs. The Council said if Mr X took a new home temporarily it will give him a letter confirming he will keep his priority of Band A+ if he needs to move again.
28. The Council has had regular contact with Mr X for several years. I do not intend to detail every interaction they have had over the years. I have summarised below some of the key events relevant to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened.

Housing

29. Mr X’s housing allocations priority is Band A+. This is a cumulative award made up of Band A medical need and Band A homelessness.
30. Because of Mr X’s medical conditions, the Council recognised a bungalow may be suitable and added this to Mr X’s housing profile. The Council also agreed to identify homes which may be suitable for Mr X and offer them to him direct without him needing to place a bid.
31. Between February 2019 and October 2020, Mr X, or the Council, made bids on at least 38 properties. These were either flats or bedsits. 21 were Council and 17 were housing association properties. The Council rejected or bypassed Mr X’s bids on 13 properties. This was because the properties had either been adapted and Mr X did not have a suitable medical need, Mr X did not meet the age criteria, Mr X did not need a 2-bed property, or because the properties were unsuitable due to the risk of noise or ASB.
32. Mr X rejected two properties the Council offered to him after viewing them from the outside and because he did not want to live in the area. He rejected a third property because he did not think it was suitable long term.
33. Between January 2019 and February 2020, the Council let 9 bungalows in Mr X’s areas of choice. Three were not advertised. Three had 2 bedrooms, so Mr X was not eligible. Three were suitable 1-bed bungalows Mr X could have bid for.

Anti-social behaviour

34. Mr X has two next-door neighbours. He shares a driveway with one of his neighbours. Between November 2019 and July 2020, Mr X made allegations against both his next-door neighbours about his driveway being blocked, his bins being moved, noise, verbal abuse, rubbish, banging on the walls, slamming doors, shouting, and swearing.
35. Over the same period, both Mr X’s neighbours made similar allegations to the Council about Mr X.
36. In January 2020, Mr X called the police to complain about his neighbour banging and causing a disturbance. His neighbour alleged it was Mr X who was banging, shouting and swearing.
37. A local MP contacted the Council on 8 January on behalf of Mr X and his neighbour. They asked the Council to offer support to both. The Council wrote to Mr X’s neighbours, and to Mr X, to confirm they would investigate. It also added Mr X to the waiting list for NME. It assigned two case officers, one to speak to Mr X and another to speak to his neighbours.
38. On 16 January, Mr X reported to the Council that his neighbour was revving a petrol lawn mower next to his house without using it. He said his neighbours were working together to get rid of him. The Council met with Mr X’s neighbours later in January to discuss the issues.
39. Mr X telephoned the Council on 17 March. He said he experienced daily harassment from his neighbours, their family, and visitors. He complained about noise nuisance and his neighbour blocking his drive. Mr X would not meet the ASB team case officer without a third party – as he does not trust the Council. The officer, who I will call Officer 1, asked Mr X to send evidence, which he agreed. Officer 1 agreed to look into helping install CCTV if Mr X paid for it. Officer 1 asked Mr X to record incidents and call the police if necessary. Mr X was reluctant to give the Council his diary evidence, as he did not trust them not to use it against him.
40. Officer 1 then sent a form to Mr X about supplying evidence and sent an email to the housing team asking for information about the parking situation.
41. Mr X spoke to Officer 1 on 2 April to ask for an update. Officer 1 said they would invite Mr X’s neighbours to an interview. They agreed to discuss loud music, kicking and banging on the walls, harassment, threats, shouting abuse, parking, and bins. Officer 1 asked Mr X about the outcome he wanted and if he was looking to move home. Mr X was unhappy with this and said he did not want to work with Officer 1. Officer 1 agreed not to contact Mr X and instead speak to his daughter.
42. Mr X left a message for Officer 1 on 6 April. He said the Council needed to do more and act quicker. He said he shouldn’t need to submit diaries; the police logs should be enough. He asked for NME and said by speaking to the neighbours they would just make counter allegations.
43. Officer 1 spoke to Mr X on 6 April to tell him the outcome of the interviews with his neighbours. Mr X asked for NME. Officer 1 said the Council could not install NME yet due to government rules about Covid-19. Mr X said he needed CCTV as there will never be concrete evidence without it. Mr X asked Officer 1 to visit neighbours with the police. Officer 1 said they could not do so without further evidence.
44. Officer 1 discussed CCTV with their supervisor. The supervisor considered CCTV would not be accepted in this case due to rules about intrusive surveillance.
45. Officer 1 spoke to Mr X the next day and explained diaries were needed before NME would be used. Officer 1 then spoke to the police about recent threats. The police said Mr X did not want to give a statement and asked them to warn his neighbour, which they did.
46. Officer 1 visited the site on 7 April at 11:30am. They observed no cars at either home. Bins from Mr X’s neighbours were pushed right against the wall.
47. Mr X spoke to Officer 1 on 17 April. He said he had not provided diary evidence yet as he received the Council’s complaint response and was unhappy with it. Because of this he was not prepared to trust Officer 1. He said the Council was corrupt and dishonest. Mr X eventually agreed to send diaries when Officer 1 said they could not put allegations to the neighbours without them. Mr X agreed his daughter would forward the diaries.
48. Mr X left Officer 1 a message on 19 April. He said neighbours kicked his bins and pushed them back three times that week. He wanted Officer 1 to come and witness it. Mr X’s daughter sent his diary entries the same day.
49. After considering Mr X’s diary entries, Officer 1 wrote to his neighbours inviting them to interview.
50. Officer 1 visited the site on 22 April and 23 April. They observed a white car parked outside at a slightly awkward angle. It was difficult to tell whether this was causing an obstruction. The bins were up against the wall. It was difficult to tell if the bins would obstruct parking. Officer 1 considered there was enough room.
51. Officer 1 visited the site again on 29 April from 5:55pm to 6:23pm. She observed no cars in the driveway and no issues with bins were seen.
52. Officer 1 spoke to Mr X’s neighbours at the end of April. Both neighbours denied the allegations and gave their version of events. In the absence of any substantive evidence, the Council decided to take no further action. Officer 1 wrote to Mr X’s neighbours to tell them the Council would continue to investigate reported problems and will take further action as appropriate. It said investigations could include surveillance, monitoring, recordings, and witnesses.
53. Mr X left messages for Officer 1 on 18 and 19 May. He made more complaints about his neighbours and police incidents. He said the Council put him in a vulnerable position due to false allegations against him. He asked for NME and said he would make a formal complaint if Officer 1 did not respond by the end of the day.
54. Officer 1 spoke to Mr X. They discussed parking issues. Mr X agreed this was not as bad since the Council’s investigations. Officer 1 suggested Mr X start parking on his driveway again. Mr X was unhappy with this. Mr X also complained about bins being moved and his neighbours taking up too much space. Officer 1 said Mr X’s neighbours had more bins, but they were not causing an obstruction when she visited the site. Mr X disagreed. Officer 1 said she visited as requested to look at parking and the bins, and she had seen photographic evidence from Mr X’s neighbours. Mr X was unhappy and called Officer 1 corrupt. He accused his neighbours of kicking his bins over. Officer 1 asked Mr X if he had seen them or had evidence. Mr X said no. He then refused to work with Officer 1.
55. Officer 1 discussed the case with her supervisor. Officer 1 considered Mr X’s neighbours had reason to move his bins, as they were obstructing access. Officer 1 also thought there was sufficient room for Mr X to park his car if he trimmed or maintained his bushes.
56. Mr X’s daughter sent an email to the Council on 26 May. She said they no longer wanted Officer 1 to work on the case.
57. Mr X’s case was allocated to Officer 2 on 18 June. On 22 June, Officer 2 visited Mr X’s address. He observed no cars parked either side of the drive and bins were kept against the wall.
58. Officer 2 spoke to Mr X’s daughter on 1 July. They wanted general allegations putting to the neighbours, not specifics and no dates or times. Officer 2 said this was not possible because neighbours would just say they did not know or ask when. He also said neighbours had a right to know what they were accused of. Officer 2 said he would not speak to neighbours again as Mr X’s allegations had already been put to them and denied.
59. Officer 2 carried out another site visit after speaking to Mr X’s daughter. He observed nothing untoward.
60. In early July, Mr X’s daughter sent the Council photographs of Mr X’s shared drive as proof of access being blocked. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation and asked to raise a formal complaint.
61. Officer 2 conducted a site visit on 9 July but saw nothing untoward.
62. On 23 July 2020, Mr X’s daughter sent diary entries to Officer 2 detailing Mr X’s complaints since the last interviews.
63. Internal Council emails confirm NME was ready to be installed but only for 10 days, not the one-month Mr X asked for. This was because the equipment could only store a limited number of recordings.
64. On July 29, a resident from Mr X’s street contacted the Council in response to its letter asking for witnesses. The resident told the Council the only person on the street that causes ASB is Mr X. They saw him verbally abuse his neighbour. They did not want to make a complaint, however.
65. Officer 2 interviewed Mr X’s neighbours at the end of July. A neighbour accepted they sometimes park on the shared drive to load or unload the car. This was not to prevent access or cause upset. They said they only moved Mr X’s bins when they blocked access.
66. Officer 2 then wrote to Mr X neighbours, clarifying the allegations, and advising that the Council would continue to investigate reports of ASB including using surveillance and monitoring equipment.
67. Mr X’s daughter spoke to Officer 2 on 31 July. She asked for Mr X’s diary entries not to be shared with neighbours. Officer 2 said he had already discussed the allegations with neighbours. Mr X’s daughter asked for Officer 2 to be removed from the case. Mr X accused Officer 2 of not doing a full or proper investigation. Officer 2 said he put allegations to Mr X’s neighbours, but NME recordings were needed to progress the case.
68. The Council installed NME in Mr X’s home in August.
69. In September, the Council asked Mr X to return the NME. Mr X’s daughter said ASB was continuing, and the Council was not doing enough to tackle it. She complained about the parameters of the NME and said they were happy for the Council to collect it if they install new NME equipment at the same time.
70. The Council spoke to the NME manufacturer, who confirmed parameters can be altered and the machines can record for longer than 5 minutes if the settings are changed.
71. On 21 September 2020, the Council got advice from its legal department about Mr X’s driveway and access. The Council’s legal department confirmed the Council and Mr X’s neighbour jointly own the drive and share right of way. The drive should not be blocked to prevent passing or use of the right of way. The Council could apply for an injunction, but this should be a last resort given the costs and time involved compared to the impact it would achieve. Evidence of the obstruction would be needed. Enforcing an injunction would be through the courts and evidence of the breach would be needed. In practice, the Council’s legal department thought written reminders was the most appropriate action.
72. At the end of September, the Council sent warning letters about parking to Mr X and his neighbours.

Response to my enquiries

73. Regarding Mr X’s housing priority, the Council told me its housing bidding system is automated. The properties available for an applicant to bid on are generated based on their need. There is no human involvement, it is done automatically.
74. The Council said it explained to Mr X he should only bid on properties he is eligible for, such as 1 bed properties. Mr X continues to bid on properties he is not eligible for and has therefore been bypassed.
75. The Council told me its computer system only shows the direct let status of an applicant in the housing office for their area of first choice. That is why Mr X cannot see other areas in his application. The Council has recently added two more locations to Mr X’s direct let list. He has not had any direct let offers in these areas yet because there is a lack of stock and they are areas of high demand. The Council has made direct let offers to Mr X in one area, but he has since told the Council he does not want to consider properties in that area.
76. Mr X does not have a confirmed medical need for older people’s housing. He can bid for older people’s housing, but his bid will only be considered if no one over the age of 55 is suitable or takes the property.
77. The Council told me it recently re-assessed Mr X’s medical evidence, but it did not alter his priority. Mr X has Band A+ priority with a medical recommendation for a bungalow. The Council considers this is reflective of his circumstances.
78. Regarding ASB, the Council told me three different officers assessed the audio recordings from the NME in Mr X’s home. They all concluded there was no noise which amounted to a statutory nuisance. The Council confirmed to Mr X that no further action will be taken.

Back to top

Analysis

79. In response to my draft decision, Mr X said he was unhappy with the lies and false narrative from the Council. He disagrees with all the Council’s responses about how it manages his housing priority and how it dealt with his ASB complaints. He said it is not accurate to say the Council responded to his complaints. He felt his complaints were ignored.

Housing

80. Mr X does not think the Council has taken full account of his medical needs. He wants priority to bid for older people’s sheltered housing. While the Council acknowledged Mr X’s serious medical conditions, such as a brain injury and PTSD, it did not consider this resulted in a need for older people’s housing or the services that go with it. The Council considered all relevant considerations, did not consider any irrelevant considerations, and its conclusions were rational. So, I cannot consider the merits of the decision it made.
81. Mr X said no bungalows appeared on his housing list for the period I have investigated. He said this shows the Council is manipulating his housing list to stop eligible homes from appearing. He also said some of his bids were overlooked.
82. I have seen Mr X’s housing profile. It reflects the priority he has been awarded, confirms his medical need for a bungalow, and the areas he would prefer to live in. I have also seen a list of homes Mr X placed bids on, or was offered, between February 2019 and October 2020.
83. My investigation found no evidence the Council manipulated Mr X’s housing list or stopped him bidding on eligible homes. On the occasions where Mr X’s bids were bypassed, this was because the homes were given to other applicants with relevant medical needs, Mr X was not eligible, or the Council considered the homes were not suitable because of the risk of noise. Given the history Mr X has experienced with ASB, I do not find the Council at fault. Going forwards the Council agreed not to bypass Mr X’s bids on properties where noise or anti-social behaviour may be a concern.
84. On the evidence seen, of the nine bungalows let in Mr X’s preferred areas since January 2019, he was eligible to bid on three but did not place any bids. At least two appeared on Mr X’s housing list. It cannot be confirmed whether the third appeared on Mr X’s list because the property was advertised at a time when the Council was moving to a new computer system.
85. Mr X also said he received no direct let offers from the Council in the last year. On the evidence seen, the Council offered three homes to Mr X. Mr X said the properties were unsuitable and he did not want to live in that area.
86. The three properties the Council offered were not in Mr X’s areas of choice. However, the Council’s policy states it will try to accommodate applicants’ preferences when it makes direct offers, but this is not always possible. I do not consider the Council was at fault.

Anti-social behaviour

87. Mr X made numerous reports to the Council over the period I investigated about both his next-door neighbours. Over the same period, Mr X’s neighbours also made complaints about him.
88. The police were called on several occasions. I have not seen evidence the police took action against Mr X’s neighbours. However, I have seen evidence the police took action against Mr X, issuing him with a community notice.
89. The Council responded to and investigated all reports of ASB Mr X made. Officers wrote to his neighbours and interviewed them. Mr X’s only evidence was his diary entries and allegations, so the Council could not take further action when neighbours denied the allegations. Different officers made several visits to the properties but did not witness any of the issues Mr X complained about.
90. After delays brought about by Covid-19, the Council supplied Mr X with NME. The Council assessed the audio recordings but did not consider any of the incidents Mr X captured amount to ASB. That was the professional judgement of officers and was not fault.
91. The evidence I have seen shows the Council did investigate Mr X complaints about ASB, to the extent it could. It responded to the reports Mr X made and case officers tried to work with him to find a solution. The Council cannot take action without supporting evidence.
92. Mr X said the NME was not useful or effective in capturing the ASB. He asked the Council to install NME again with different recording parameters. That is for the Council to decide.
93. We expect to see evidence the Council has taken reasonable practical steps to investigate ASB and noise nuisance. I consider the actions undertaken by the Council demonstrates it has done that in this case. The methods used to gather evidence are up to the Council. I have not seen evidence of fault.
94. Mr X made significant demands of Council officers in the ASB team. He had unrealistic expectations about what action could be taken and how quickly. He expected the Council to take his word for what happened and disregard what his neighbours said. When things did not go as Mr X wanted, he reacted angrily and complained about the officer or requested a new case worker.
95. I do not consider the Council was at fault in the way it investigated Mr X’s complaints about ASB.

Back to top

Final decision

96. I have completed my investigation. I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council managed Mr X’s housing application or investigated anti-social behaviour.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman