Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about its actions after she reported anti-social behaviour because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement. We cannot investigate part of Ms X’s complaint as it relates to the Council acting as social landlord.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to act when she reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) and trespass and therefore failed to safeguard a vulnerable tenant. Ms X said the lack of action caused distress and meant she remained exposed to ASB.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X, a Council tenant, reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) and trespass after a relative moved in with her neighbour. She said she could hear arguing next door and doors banging. Her housing officer said this was not sufficient for a referral to the Council’s ASB team.
8. Ms X also said the relative approached her front door and went away again. Council records suggest those incidents stopped after Ms X changed her own behaviour in response to advice from the housing officer.
9. In April 2025, the Council made a referral for an ASB assessment, but this did not proceed because Ms X did not provide further information about the ASB.
10. The Council considered whether Ms X could join its housing register for rehousing. It initially decided she did not have a housing need. Ms X asked for a review. The Council’s review panel the further medical evidence Ms X provided and decided to award band B on its housing register to reflect the impact of the neighbours’ behaviours on Ms X’s mental health. Band B was later backdated to November 2024, when Ms X had first reported concerns about noise.
11. In its final complaint response, the Council:
• clarified the concerns Ms X had raised did not meet the threshold for safeguarding actions;
• confirmed it was not able to take formal action in relation to the ASB reported because the incidents reported had not met its threshold. It confirmed Ms X could continue to report incidents, which it would consider;
• said there was no evidence of bias and all Council tenants were treated fairly; and
• confirmed Ms X’s current property met her physical needs but band B was awarded to reflect it did not fully meet her mental health needs.
12. In further correspondence, the Council confirmed the medical recommendations in relation to the type of property Ms X needed did not allow her to bid for retirement properties. These were usually only let to those aged 60 and over or those who had particular support needs, neither of which applied to Ms X.
13. Ms X has since been rehoused.

My assessment

14. Ms X is a Council tenant. Council records show that its housing officer considered her reports of ASB and trespass as part of the Council's tenancy management functions. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about councils when they are acting as social landlords.
15. We expect housing officers to refer complaints about to the ASB team for it to consider exercising the Council’s general ASB powers where it appears the noise may amount to a statutory nuisance. Whilst there may have been a delay in doing this, it did not cause a sufficient injustice to Ms X to justify further investigation because the Council confirmed the threshold for enforcement action was not met.
16. The Council considered Ms X’s request for rehousing through its housing register. It considered the information it had and its allocations scheme at each decision point. Its initial decision of “no housing need” was reversed at the review stage, after considering further medical evidence. The band B award was backdated to November 2024, which remedies any initial delay in considering medical priority. The Council explained why Ms X was not eligible for band A. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further investigation. We cannot investigate complaints about the Council’s actions as social landlord.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman