Summary: There was fault by the Council when it failed to ensure Mr X’s flat was suitable before he moved there, to explain to him how it would deal with his reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance, to consider properly his homeless application or his requests for interim accommodation, and when it took too long to arrange an occupational therapist’s assessment. The Council also did not handle Mr X’s complaints to it properly or have proper regard for his reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act. This caused Mr X distress, inconvenience, and frustration. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Mr X and take specific steps to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to:

• Ensure his flat was suitable for him before he moved in;
• Properly carry out adaptations to the property to meet his needs while he was there;
• Arrange an occupational therapist assessment of his housing need as agreed;
• Consider his homelessness application, provide him with interim accommodation, or move him when he could no longer stay in the flat due to the impact on his health;
• Deal effectively with his reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours;
• Keep a promise to source a bungalow for him and help with removal costs; and
• Deal with his complaint to it properly, adhere to the Equality Act and reasonable adjustments, and led him to believe that it would pay compensation.

2. Mr X says that the Council’s failures have caused him severe distress and impacted on his disability. He says it has meant he was in unsuitable accommodation. Mr X was unable to have some psychiatric treatments while he was in unsuitable housing as he was told by the relevant health professionals that it would not be effective while he was dealing with a housing crisis.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner of failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
6. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. If the LGSCO is 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)
9. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

What we have and have not investigated

10. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended and Paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
11. Mr X complains about the Council's actions and decisions dating back to January 2022. It has taken some time for Mr X’s complaints to reach the LGSCO. Mr X is vulnerable and has been severely impacted by his housing situation and his wider circumstances. In addition, the LGSCO asked Mr X to take some matters to the Council first so that it had an opportunity to resolve these and so it took longer for him to make the complaints to the HOS and LGSCO. For these reasons, we have exercised discretion to consider the Council’s actions from January 2022.
12. The timeframe of our investigation is January 2022 to February 2024 when Mr X moved out of the Council’s area. However, it also takes into account the stage two response that the Council provided in October 2024 after contact from the HOS.
13. Mr X has also made a complaint that the Council failed to safeguard him and about how it assessed his social care needs. This includes when Mr X became ill and when he took hunger or dehydration action as a last resort because he felt the Council was not meeting his housing or social care needs. The LGSCO has investigated these issues separately.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

14. Mr X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
15. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.

Back to top

What we found

The law and guidance

Homelessness

16. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
17. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
18. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.
19. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Statutory Noise nuisance and Antisocial Behaviour

20. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable.
21. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. This includes noise nuisance.
22. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

23. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
24. The law says that a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise or fumes.
25. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

The Equality Act

26. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
27. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. The protected characteristics include disability.
28. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
29. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
30. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
31. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
32. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

33. Mr X was living in a council property. He has a number of disabilities and physical and mental health conditions. Mr X is also autistic. He is hypersensitive to noise and this has a severe impact on him. He had complained to the Council that his neighbours and people outside were making excessive noise and this was making him very ill.
34. In January 2022, the Council had a meeting of housing and social care staff and decided to move Mr X to a new flat. The Council met with Mr X to discuss his housing needs. The Council said it would not move him to emergency accommodation while it was looking for another property, only if it would take too long to adapt a new property once it had found one.
35. Mr X became very distressed from the noise while he was waiting for a new property. He felt he had to sleep rough and refused to drink any liquid (which he called a dehydration strike). He did this three times in January. Mr X was so distressed he felt that he may have to go into psychiatric care.
36. In February 2022, the Council told Mr X that it had found another property. This was a flat in a converted building with a downstairs neighbour. The Council told Mr X that a surveyor would assess whether it needed some sound insulation to take account of Mr X’s disability. The Council is clear that it would offer Mr X the property as a management transfer in its capacity as his landlord.
37. The surveyor identified some sound insulating work. Mr X was becoming increasingly distressed due to noise in his current flat and he had gone on a hunger strike in desperation. In March, Mr X’s psychiatrist wrote to the Council asking it to move him to interim accommodation while it carried out the work to the new flat. But later that month the Council completed the work on the new flat. This involved installation of carpet and underlay throughout, funded by a hardship fund, and soundproofing of walls adjoining a neighbouring property.
38. Mr X moved to the new flat in April 2022. Very soon after moving, Mr X reported to the Council that he was suffering excessive noise from his neighbours living in the flat below him. He said his neighbours were talking loudly and banging around late at night and in the early hours of the morning. Mr X told the Council that he could hear every noise from his neighbours because the sound insulation between his flat and theirs, was not sufficient.
39. The Council said it would consider further adaptations to protect Mr X from the noise and an adaptations manager and a builder visited. It decided it would not do work to Mr X’s kitchen or bathroom but it would do some further work to other parts of the flat. The Council approved this in May and completed work in July 2022, which included insulation in the stairwell and over floorboards. Mr X reported that this extra work was not effective and that the builder said insulation under floorboards may help, which they would speak to the Council about. In August and September, the Council told Mr X it would consider further work to the flat.
40. In the meantime, Mr X’s health was deteriorating, due to his sensitivity to his neighbours’ noise. He was becoming very distressed. Mr X had been due to start therapy but his health practitioner decided this would not be effective while his housing situation was causing him so much distress.
41. In September 2022, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council that it had not done enough to make sure the flat was suitable for him or met his health needs. Mr X then queried a lack of update in October and December, and asked it to clarify if his complaint had completed stage two in January 2023.
42. Mr X continued to complain about the noise from his neighbours. The Council told him that it would need to gather diary sheets or consider noise monitoring equipment to justify further work to the flat. Mr X asked how the Council would consider his disabilities and noise sensitivity when assessing noise recordings and diary sheets. The Council told Mr X that it would consult an acoustic specialist about the noise recordings, but it did not explain to him whether or not it could take into account that he is hypersensitive to noise, which Mr X had specifically asked the Council about.
43. Mr X said he wanted to move again but as this might not be possible, the Council should do more work on the flat to makes sure it was suitable for him. In February 2023, the Council suggested he could try a mutual exchange to move or it could consider a direct offer of a different property but this would mean he could not choose the property or area.
44. In April 2023, Mr X completed an ASB report to the Council because the problems with his neighbours had got worse. He asked the Council to provide mediation for him and his neighbours and an interpreter so they could understand one another. The Council’s ASB team said it would contact him to agree a course of action.
45. In May, Mr X complained to the Council that it had not done enough to make sure the flat was suitable; it had not adapted the flat sufficiently; it knew there were noise problems there before he moved in; and it had not responded to his report of ASB.
46. The Council told Mr X it had sent a general letter to his neighbours, but it would not take further action on the ASB because it would not be able to gather sufficient evidence. The Council also told him that it would need to witness noise nuisance. The Council later provided a stage one response about the ASB, which only addressed an alleged spitting incident and said this was not evidenced.
47. Mr X became very distressed and went to hospital seeking psychiatric treatment. The hospital said it would arrange community support for Mr X at home rather than admit him to psychiatric care. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its process.
48. Mr X again became very distressed. He went back to the hospital and stayed there for six days awaiting assessment. Mr X had continued to chase the Council for updates on his complaints and his housing issues.
49. In June, the Council offered Mr X noise monitoring equipment and asked him to complete a noise diary so that it could consider further adaptations. Mr X said he would only do this if the Council can explain how it would take into account his autism and noise sensitivity when assessing the recordings.
50. Mr X again became very distressed by his contact with the Council and he went from the hospital to the town hall to start a hunger strike. A Council officer convinced Mr X to return to the hospital which then discharged him. However, Mr X felt unable to go home so he slept rough for three nights until the impact on his physical disabilities and mental health forced him to return to his flat.
51. The Council officer became Mr X’s main point of contact and they exchanged many emails with Mr X. The Council confirmed it could consider more adaptations but it would need to base these on noise recordings so that it can decide what might work. The Council said it could look at a direct offer or transfer him to a bungalow when one becomes available.
52. Mr X met with the Council. He decided he would not continue with his complaints if the Council can resolve a move to a more suitable property. On 21 August, the Council agreed to pay Mr X £2,000 as a full and final settlement, and put him on the waiting list for a bungalow. Mr X says the Council initially told him that it would take around six months to move him.
53. Mr X had been attempting a mutual exchange but in September, this fell through. Mr X asked the Council when it would pay the agreed amount and move him to a bungalow. Mr X continued to chase the Council throughout September. In October, the Council told him that he was still on a waiting list for a bungalow but could not tell him how long this might take. It said that it would draw up the paperwork for the full and final settlement.
54. In October, Mr X started to ask the Council for interim accommodation. He said he could no longer stay in his flat due to the problems with the neighbours. The Council said it could not be any more specific about when it might be able to offer him a bungalow.
55. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s requests for interim accommodation and at the beginning of November, he made a homelessness application. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s application initially.
56. By this time, Mr X had arranged another mutual exchange that would allow him to leave the area.
57. As part of an earlier LGSCO investigation, the Council agreed to complete an assessment of Mr X’s social care needs, and following this, an OT assessment of how to meet his housing needs.
58. The Council completed the social care assessment in February 2023. Mr X has complained about the social care assessment and the LGSCO has investigated this complaint separately.
59. Mr X was understandably concerned that any OT should be suitably qualified and experienced especially in assessing how his autism impacted on his housing needs. He gave the Council a list of private OTs but there is no indication that the Council considered this list. In November, the Council told Mr X that it had sought a specialist OT to assess his needs. It said that this was in response to his homelessness application, although the Council has told us that it had not received an application.
60. Mr X spoke to the OT on the phone, however, the assessment did not go ahead. Mr X says the OT was rude and aggressive. Mr X asked the Council to accept a private OT assessment and he asked to see the referral documentation to the OT it had arranged so that he could check the referral. The Council did not respond to Mr X on this.
61. Mr X continued to chase the Council asking about the payment and the bungalow. It was clear that his situation continued to cause him distress. By the end of January, Mr X had not heard from the Council so he decided to continue with his complaints to the LGSCO and HOS. Mr X moved out of the Council’s area by mutual exchange in February 2024.
62. In November 2024, after correspondence from the HOS, the Council responded at stage two to Mr X’s complaint about the ASB, management move, adaptations and its complaint handling. This upheld the complaints about adaptations and its complaint handling but not other aspects.

Findings

That the Council failed to ensure his flat was suitable for Mr X before he moved in

63. Mr X clearly felt significant distress at his previous property. The Council’s offer of a management move was therefore positive and in line with its policy for it to consider exercising discretion in exceptional circumstances.
64. The Council said in late January 2022 that there were 2 empty properties that met the requirements Mr X gave. It said that someone from its adults services would assess their suitability and any reasonable adjustments. Mr X indicated that the Council’s assessment of the property suitability did not meet his expectations and what he was told would happen, such as an assessment with him present.
65. The evidence shows that an assessment of the property was done which took into account Mr X’s hypersensitivity to noise and identified some soundproofing works. The Council then completed these before Mr X viewed the property and signed the tenancy. This shows that the Council took some reasonable practical action to try to ensure the flat was suitable before Mr X moved in. But the HOS would have liked to have seen some clearer evidence about the Council’s decision-making and communication to Mr X about the suitability of the property.
66. The evidence does show that when Mr X reported that further soundproofing was needed in April 2022, staff highlighted they had raised concerns before the initial works. They had stressed it was not full soundproofing, as that would involve appointing an acoustic specialist and take several months to complete works. They had also stressed that the property type was notorious for having poor sound insulation and this could be impacted by neighbour issues. They therefore emphasised a need to manage Mr X’s expectations.
67. The HOS cannot say that the Council was obligated to appoint an acoustic specialist or do more works than it did to ensure the property was suitable before Mr X moved in. We understand that the circumstances were challenging and time sensitive, that the Council’s main concern was to remove Mr X from the difficult circumstances at his previous property, and that it could not necessarily avoid him being affected by similar issues. Mr X has reportedly left multiple properties due to similar issues. But given the impact of the previous property on Mr X, it would have been appropriate for the Council to more clearly show it considered these internal concerns and managed Mr X’s expectations about them. This did not show sufficient consideration for his vulnerabilities. This leads the HOS to find a service failure in the Council’s handling of the suitability of the flat.

That the Council failed to properly carry out adaptations to the property to meet Mr X’s needs while he was there

68. The Council completed some initial soundproofing works in March 2022, and Mr X reported further soundproofing was needed in April 2022 after he moved in. The Council inspected around May 2022 and did some further works in July 2022. Mr X then said noise issues continued and the builder had made recommendations. He was told the Council would consider further works and chased for updates for several months. The Council then suggested installation of noise monitoring equipment in January 2023, after which he queried how his autism and hypersensitivity would be taken into account. The Council did not reply.
69. Soundproofing is normally an improvement to a property and does not come under a landlord’s day-to-day responsive repairs obligations. A tenant can ask a local authority to carry out an occupational therapy assessment to assess their needs, but it is not evident such an assessment recommended specific soundproofing works in the complaint timeframe. A landlord is obligated to consider reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 but can consider costs when doing so.
70. The HOS does not have the jurisdiction or expertise in the same way as courts to say the Council was obligated to do more soundproofing to meet Mr X’s needs. But we can consider how the Council responded to his requests for adaptations. The Council shows it inspected and completed further identified works in a reasonably timely manner. It is then reasonably evident that appropriate adaptations departments were involved and considered scope to fund further works. But its handling was not entirely satisfactory.
71. Mr X experienced delays when the Council said it would consider further works, and he went to time and trouble chasing. It is not evident how it considered Mr X’s report that the builder had made further recommendations. It is also not evident that it replied when he asked how it would take into account his disabilities when assessing noise, if it installed noise equipment. The Council therefore missed some opportunities to communicate effectively to Mr X and clearly explain its obligations and position. This will have caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. This leads the HOS to find a service failure in the Council’s handling of the adaptations.

That the Council failed to consider Mr X’s homelessness application, provide him with interim accommodation, or move him when he could no longer stay in the flat due to the impact on his health;

72. The Council decided to offer Mr X a more suitable home in January 2022. This took until April 2022 to arrange, because the Council had to first find somewhere and then adapt it. Mr X was very distressed during this time. The Council told him it would give him interim accommodation if it would take too long to adapt a new property.
73. If the Council decided it was not reasonable for Mr X to stay in his flat then it may have a duty to offer Mr X interim accommodation. The Council was not clear about how it considered this, and why it would offer interim accommodation while adaptations were made, but not before it had found a property. I cannot say that the Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation, but it was fault when it failed to consider this and explain its position clearly to Mr X.
74. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it had not received a homelessness application from Mr X when he was in his new flat. However, it is clear that Mr X made one in November 2023, when he felt he could no longer live there. This means the Council had a duty to make enquiries and to assess whether Mr X was threatened with homelessness on the basis that it was not reasonable for him to remain living there.
75. The Council sought a specialist assessor and so it did intend to assess his homelessness application. Mr X had a high level of contact with the Council during this time and it was trying to assist him. However, the Council was not clear with Mr X how it would assess his homelessness or what was happening on his application, leaving him to chase the Council for information. The Council also took too long to progress the application.
76. The Council failed to respond to Mr X’s requests for interim accommodation made from October 2023. It may have considered that it needed to assess his situation before deciding if it had a duty to provide interim accommodation, and Mr X would need to consider that moving to interim accommodation would mean that he could not go ahead with a mutual exchange. But it was fault for the Council not to respond to Mr X’s requests.
77. The failure to explain how it would assess his homelessness application fully and respond to his requests for interim accommodation was fault by the Council. We cannot say that had the Council acted without fault, it would have moved Mr X from the new flat sooner, but its shortcomings caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. This is especially the case as Mr X had been saying for some time that he was finding it extremely difficult to stay at the flat, he had presented himself to hospital more than once, and had undertaken hunger and dehydration strikes as well as sleeping rough, in his desperation to get help from the Council.
78. LGSCO had investigated a complaint by Mr X about an earlier period in his life when he was homeless and then in accommodation that he did not find suitable. The LGSCO decided in 2023, that the Council had failed in that earlier period, to consider whether it was reasonable for Mr X to stay in his former flat and whether it should provide interim accommodation.
79. In 2023, the Council agreed to the LGSCO’s recommendations including that it would review the complaint and identify the lessons learned in terms of ensuring clarity about homelessness decisions, and how it explains the applicant’s right to interim accommodation. It therefore is disappointing to find that the Council again failed to explain to Mr X how it would consider its homelessness and interim accommodation duties when he felt he could no longer stay at his new flat.

That the Council failed to arrange an occupational therapist (OT) assessment of Mr X’s housing need as agreed

80. The Council said it would arrange an OT assessment once it had completed the social care assessment. However, the Council did not tell Mr X that it had found a specialist OT until November 2023, nine months after his social care assessment and seven months after he had moved to the new flat and had started reporting that it was not meeting his needs. This was too long and was fault by the Council. It could have done this much sooner, and it would have been in a better place to understand how the flat was meeting Mr X’s needs, whether it had any homelessness duties including to provide interim accommodation, and whether it could make further adaptations to the flat.
81. The Council’s failure caused Mr X distress and uncertainty.

That the Council failed to deal effectively with Mr X’s reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours

82. It is unlikely that the type of noise that Mr X was suffering would have been a statutory noise nuisance. However, the Council should have explained to Mr X the difference between how it deals with ASB and noise nuisance. The Council offered noise recording equipment. Mr X asked several times whether it would take into account his autism and that he is hypersensitive to noise when it assessed the recordings. The Council told Mr X that it would consult an acoustic specialist about the noise recordings, but it did not explain to him whether or not it could take into account that he is hypersensitive to noise, which Mr X had specifically asked the Council about
83. The law says that a potential statutory nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive to noise.
84. However, when a council is considering how to tackle ASB, it should take into account the complainant’s vulnerabilities. The Council should have done a risk assessment of Mr X particularly as the Council knew he was vulnerable. The risk assessment would inform the ASB investigation.
85. The Council may have decided that its best approach was to focus on the adaptations but it has not shown that it properly considered the reports of ASB. It does not show it responded to or had a clear action plan for reports of noise at unsocial hours, such as at 3am, between April 2022 and December 2022, until it asked Mr X to complete diary sheets in January 2023. It sent a letter to the neighbours around May 2022, but it does not show it considered further action or responded when Mr X said issues continued. It did not respond to Mr X’s request for mediation and it did not appear to coordinate this with the ongoing housing situation or explain this to Mr X. The level of support evident for reports of noise at unsocial hours is unsatisfactorily limited, particularly in respect to an action plan and consideration of other interventions for this. Such noise would be potentially unreasonable under the tenancy agreement if frequent and ongoing, and this showed a lack of consideration for Mr X particularly given his autism and noise sensitivity.
86. Overall the LGSCO find fault, and the HOS find maladministration, in how the Council handled Mr X’s complaints of noise and ASB. It should have explained to him where it could and could not take into account his autism and sensitivity to noise; it should have completed a risk assessment to inform its ASB investigation; and it should have communicated better with him about how it would deal with his reports.
87. On balance it is unlikely that the Council would have taken enforcement action for ASB or statutory noise nuisance. However, it may have helped with mediation and considered other intervention measures, and its poor communication left Mr X distressed and uncertain.

That the Council failed to keep a promise to source a bungalow for Mr X and help with removal costs

88. The Council said it would put Mr X on a list for a bungalow and it did this. It was clear that this might take some time. Mr X asked several times for clarification about how the list would work. The Council explained that the list would change as new applicants were added and some of these may have higher priority to Mr X and so would be placed above him on the list. However, Mr X specifically asked the date that he was entered on the list, and his priority. The Council did not clarify this with him.
89. The Council told Mr X that it would help with removal costs if he arranged a mutual exchange. When Mr X arranged this, the Council said it would not help. It later agreed to pay these. By this time, Mr X was dealing with another Council officer who was not familiar with what had been agreed. However, the Council was wrong to say it would not help with the costs, when it had already agreed this. The Council corrected this in good time, but its mistake caused Mr X distress and put him to the trouble of finding proof of the original agreement

That the Council failed to deal with Mr X’s complaint to it properly, led him to believe that it would pay compensation; and did not adhere to the Equality Act and reasonable adjustments.

90. Mr X made several complaints to the Council and it did not deal with these properly or in good time. Mr X started making formal complaints in September 2022 that the new flat did not meet his needs due to poor sound insulation. In May 2023, Mr B complained again that the flat was not suitable and that the Council had not responded to his report of ASB. Relevant to this investigation, he added a further complaint that month that the Council had not arranged an OT assessment as agreed. When he did not receive a comprehensive response to his complaint, Mr X asked the Council to consider these complaints at stage two of the Council’s process by at least January 2023. Mr X continued to chase the Council for a response until he agreed that he would not take the complaints further and the Council would pay a settlement.
91. The Council was corresponding with Mr X about his various housing issues, but it did not handle his complaint properly. The case may have been complex, with large volumes of correspondence from Mr X, and the Council may have been trying to be mindful of Mr X’s vulnerability and desired outcomes. However, it would have been beneficial for it to properly follow its complaints policies in respect to process and timeframes. This could have helped avoid the complaint going on for such a long time. The Council’s handling will have caused Mr X distress and uncertainty.
92. The complaint responses lacked a satisfactory level of investigation for some aspects. The stage one and two had an unsatisfactory focus on one ASB incident, and did not review whether Mr X’s ASB reports in general had been handled well, such as the reports of noise at unsocial hours.
93. The Council did not pay Mr X the settlement because he moved out of the area and decided to pursue matters further. The settlement was agreed on 21 August 2023. Mr X had at one point asked the Council to pause the full and final settlement while it clarified the housing plan. However, Mr X was still chasing the Council for news on the payment in January 2024. The Council took too long to draw up a settlement agreement.
94. As Mr X complained to the Ombudsmen, we have reached our own conclusion on the appropriate remedy for the injustice he suffered, in line with our Remedies Guidance. This is set out below
95. We cannot find that the Council breached the Equality Act as that is a matter for the courts. We look at whether the Council properly engaged with its equalities duties. The LGSCO found in the earlier investigation mentioned above, that the Council had failed to anticipate Mr X’s need for reasonable adjustments or check with him what these might be. The Council agreed to review that earlier complaint and lessons learned regarding the Equality Act.
96. In this investigation, we have seen that the Council was aware of Mr X’s disabilities and it had a lot of communication with him. However, it is not clear that the Council anticipated Mr X’s reasonable adjustments for his protected characteristic of disability in how it dealt with him. Within the scope of this investigation, Mr X’s needs are largely around his housing and how the Council communicates with him. The Council gave him a single point of contact but only after June 2023 when an officer, outside of their usual role, met him during a hunger strike. The Council should have specifically and clearly agreed Mr X’s reasonable adjustments with him and implemented these. Ideally, it should have recorded these on its files and confirmed with Mr X how it would meet its duties.

Summary

LGSCO findings

97. Overall the Council:

• Failed to consider his homelessness application properly or explain to Mr X how it would do this, and failed to consider whether it should offer him interim accommodation.
• Took too long to arrange an OT assessment.
• Failed to investigate ASB or explain how it would do this, or explain how it would consider noise recordings differently for the adaptations, ASB, and noise nuisance.
• Failed to respond to Mr X complaints comprehensively and in good time, and failed to progress the final settlement with him as agreed.
• Failed to coordinate between the various services particularly ASB and housing.
• Failed to anticipate, agree or record clearly, Mr X’s reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act

98. We cannot say that Mr X would have been housed any sooner or differently, or that the Council would have taken any action relating to ASB had it acted without fault. However, the Council’s failings caused Mr X significant distress and uncertainty.

HOS findings

99. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

• Service failure in the complaint that the Council failed to ensure Mr X’s flat was suitable for him before he moved in.
• Service failure in the complaint that the Council failed to properly carry out adaptations to the property to meet Mr X’s needs while he was there.
• Maladministration in the complaint that the Council failed to deal effectively with Mr X’s reports of and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbours.
• Maladministration in the complaint that the Council failed to deal with Mr X’s complaint to it properly; led him to believe that it would pay compensation; and did not adhere to the Equality Act and reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

Action agreed

HOS orders and recommendations

100. Within two weeks of our final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for the faults identified.
101. The HOS orders that within two weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Mr X £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him. This comprises £100 for each of the areas in which we have identified failings.

£100 for the ASB handling and £100 for complaint handling is jointly ordered/recommended by the HOS and the LGSCO

102. The HOS recommends the Council to review its complaint handling and:

• take steps to ensure it responds to and escalates all complaints in line with its complaints policy.
• consider how to effectively manage more complex and recurrent complaints to ensure these are responded to in line with its complaints policy.

103. The HOS recommends the Council to review its ASB handling and:

• take steps to ensure that it considers and responds to reports of ASB at unsocial hours.
• ensure that it communicates a clear action plan to all reporters of ASB.

104. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above orders.

LGSCO agreed action

105. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:

• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified. The LGSCO publishes guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology to Mr X. .
• Make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £200 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty it caused him when it failed to consider his homelessness application and his requests for interim accommodation properly; took too long to arrange an OT assessment; and did not explain how it would analyse any noise recordings. This brings the total compensation award to £600.
• Share this decision with relevant housing, ASB and complaints staff and remind them:
1. To complete a risk assessment when investigating ASB and be clear in communicating the approach to the victim.
2. To properly consider interim accommodation requests.
3. To be clear with homelessness applicants how it will assess their case in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.

106. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will:

• Refresh training to housing and complaints staff on the Council’s duty to anticipate and make reasonable adjustments under The Equality Act. The Council should also consider how it records these.

107. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

108. We have completed our joint investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman