Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her move to another property and then the disrepair and noise and anti-social behaviour from neighbours at the new property. She considered that as a result she was living somewhere she didn’t want to live, that the property was in a state of disrepair and she suffered disturbance from the neighbours. There was fault by the Council. It will apologise to Ms B and make a symbolic payment to her.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Ms B. She complained about how the Council dealt with her move to another property and then the disrepair and noise and anti-social behaviour from neighbours at the new property. She considered that as a result she was living somewhere she didn’t want to live, that the property was in a state of disrepair and she suffered disturbance from the neighbours..

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. Ms B 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

Background

5. Ms B was on the housing register with a high priority for a property. She had mental health problems in late 2022. At this same time she was considered for a housing association property. She moved to the property in early 2023. She complained about the behaviour of the occupiers of the property above her.

Analysis

The bid on the property

6. Ms B said she did not bid on the property. She was offered it and felt pressurised to move there. She was worried that if she did not accept it, she would not receive any further offers. By way of background, the Council had, in September 2022, placed a bid for Ms B on a property which she did not want to move to.
7. The Council stated that its records show the bid was placed through the internet but it cannot establish any further detail as to exactly where the bid was made from. It has nothing to show it was made by a Council officer. Its records do not show that Ms B raised any concerns at the time about the bid. She viewed the property and signed the tenancy agreement.
8. I recognise Ms B says she did not place the bid but given she did not raise concerns at the time and the lack of any evidence to indicate it was done by the Council for her I cannot say there was fault.

Noise

9. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Typical things which may be a statutory nuisance include noise.
10. 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 premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. Council officers assess the evidence. They will consider factors such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. The officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. Ms B first complained of problem noise from a neighbouring tenant in June. The Council’s policy on how it will deal with possible statutory noise nuisance states it provides the complainant with details of a noise app through which they can make reports. Ms B had some difficulties using the noise app but made a submission in August. The Council’s records show she made noise app reports and also reports of problem noise in emails from the end of August and through September.
14. The Council has not shown that it properly considered the reports. It was inconsistent in the information it has provided – it stated there were no noise app recording even though its own information showed there were. It then said that when the noise app recordings were reviewed they did not show a level of noise that would constitute a statutory nuisance. In reaching a decision a council should be able to show the evidence it considered and how it weighed that evidence. The Council has not done that here. There is no record of what was heard when the recordings were considered and how the officer reached the conclusion they did. I consider this to be fault.

Anti-social behaviour

15. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation. The government issued statutory guidance for professionals on how to use their ASB powers.
16. In August 2023 we published a focus report ‘Out of Order: learning lessons from complaints about antisocial behaviour.’ The Ombudsman considers it good practice to ensure the council fully consider its own role in tackling ASB; guard against policies being applied too strictly; and make sure the victim is at the heart of the council’s consideration.
17. The Council provided no information in response to my enquiries to show how it considered its own ASB powers in relation to the reports Ms B was making. She reported that she considered she was being targeted by the alleged perpetrators and that it was more than just a simple case of excessive noise. Her many emails over August and September show the problems she was experiencing and the distress this was causing her. She referred to there being a racial abuse element. The Council’s only action appears to have been to refer her to the police. Although Ms B was a tenant of a housing association as was the alleged perpetrator, the Council has not shown that it took any steps to engage with the landlord to ensure there was a joined-up approach to the consideration of the alleged ASB. This is fault.
18. The landlord moved Ms B from the property in October. I understand this was to carry out repairs to the property. As I understand it Ms B has not moved back.
19. Ms B complained about the condition of the property and disrepair. She referred to damp and mould. The housing association first offered to move Ms B to do the repairs in July. I do not, therefore, consider the Council needed to be any further involved, in this case, in the disrepair she reported.
20. The faults I find above caused some injustice to Ms B. Had the Council acted as it should in respect of the problems she reported about the behaviour of her neighbour, it may have been able to take some action. But, even if the evidence had not supported such action, then the Council should have ensured she was better informed. However, I cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms B would have been moved sooner or the problems resolved but she is left with some uncertainty. The Council should, therefore, make a symbolic payment to her in recognition of that.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Ms B in line with our guidance on making an effective apology and pay her £300;
• review its guidance and training for officers on record keeping around the analysis of noise recordings and on ensuring it has proper regard to its ASB powers when it receives complaints.

22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman