Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to give his family appropriate housing priority following noise and anti-social behaviour issues. There was some delay and fault in the decision taken in 2021. The Council agreed to grant additional priority to Mr X to enable him to receive a further offer of accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to give him sufficient housing priority to recognise the impact that his neighbours have on his family’s health and wellbeing. He complains the family’s health is suffering and they are unable to use some of their rooms due to cigarette and cannabis smoke.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the issues he raised. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. 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

6. Mr X was on the Council’s housing register. In late June 2018 a neighbourhood officer made a request for a review of his priority for re-housing. The request noted there was a history of reports made about anti-social behaviour of one of his neighbours and a noise abatement notice had been issued. The request noted Mr X reported regular loud noise and music from parties and cannabis smoke. He had also reported issues with two other neighbours. One of these made regular loud noises throughout the night, every other night. It stated guests of one of his neighbours were also very intimidating.
7. The Council considered the request for greater priority but decided on 13 July that this should not be granted as the Council was taking action to deal with the issues. This was ongoing. At the time of Mr X’s request the Council noted it had issued one of his neighbours with a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) and a Noise Abatement Notice and it was planning to issue a second Noise Abatement Notice.
8. In August Mr X asked for a review of the decision. He explained the anti-social behaviours he was living with and he added that strong cannabis smoke was finding its way into their property which was affecting his daughter’s health.
9. On 14 August, the Council agreed, on appeal, that additional priority should be granted and Mr X should be moved to Band B. The Council’s letter to Mr X stated his effective date was 4 July 2018. It stated the priority would be for one offer of accommodation only. Further incidents of anti-social behaviour were witnessed in August 2018 and the Council issued a fine.
10. By April 2019, no further reports had been made about problems, so the environmental health team closed their file.
11. However, some further reports were made by Mr X in July 2019. In August 2019 the Council told Mr X that following an inspection, no repairs could be carried out to prevent the ingress of smoke at his current property.
12. In mid-August 2019 the Council offered Mr X a property. Mr X viewed it but the Council says he did not get back in contact to confirm he wished to accept it. After failed attempts to contact Mr X, the Council treated this as the refusal of the property. This led to the loss of the new priority given to him in 2018. This is in accordance with the Council’s policy.
13. During 2019 and throughout 2020 the Council followed up several further reports of noise from Mr X. It installed noise monitoring equipment in late 2019 but did not identify a statutory nuisance. In 2020 it was not possible to install Noise Monitoring Equipment or attend addresses due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
14. In late December 2020 a further housing priority request was made. The form set out the history of noise and other issues and it explained cannabis smoke came into their home from a neighbouring property. In February 2021 the Council declined the application. Notes on its systems stated appropriate measures had already been taken to manage the problems reported and support was put in place. There were no defects in the property that caused the smoke to penetrate the property. The Council noted Mr X’s housing needs could be met by bidding in the existing band.
15. The Council wrote to Mr X on 12 March 2021. It stated why the Council had decided not to grant additional priority. Among the reasons, the Council stated:

“Whilst I appreciate issues within your property and your neighbour may have had an impact on your mental health. I have been unable to identify how rehousing you via priority would alleviate your current Housing situation.”

16. The Council told us this was a mis-statement. It recognised that given a health visitor’s advice and the concerns about the family’s health, priority should have been awarded.
17. Mr X continued to report noise from his neighbours in 2021. This was investigated via the night-time noise team and the Council contacted Mr X’s neighbour about the reports and events they witnessed. No further statutory nuisance was observed but warning letters were issued.
18. However, following a further appeal by Mr X, greater priority was awarded in April 2021 on the proviso that Mr X reduced some of his rent arrears. However, there was a delay in contacting Mr X and in granting the additional priority.
19. In July 2021, the Council made Mr X an offer of a property it considered suitable. As the property was a flat, Mr X would not view or consider it. Because Mr X declined to consider the property, the Council again, reduced his property and moved Mr X back to Band D.

Was there fault by the Council

20. The Council has explained how it responded to the noise and anti-social behaviour issues Mr X reported. The Council granted priority appropriately, on appeal in 2018.
21. However, there was fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s request for priority from 2020. The Council recognised there had been some delay in granting the priority (in July), as it agreed this in April 2021. It also accepted the grounds for originally refusing the priority in 2021 were flawed. As a result, the Council offered to reinstate Mr X’s priority and to place his application in Band B. This would be backdated to 23 December 2020. The priority would be to enable Mr X one further offer of suitable accommodation. His application would also be monitored by a senior officer.
22. I considered this was a reasonable remedy to Mr X’s complaint and the injustice the fault caused him.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council agreed to grant additional priority (in Band B) to allow Mr X to receive one offer of suitable accommodation in this band. A senior officer will also monitor Mr X’s application. The revised priority should be granted within two weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault. The Council agreed to remedy this appropriately.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman