Summary: We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s reports of anti-social behaviour because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour and Council failed to enforce his neighbour’s tenancy agreement. He said this mean he was exposed to repeated 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 Mr X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council had given permission for his neighbour, a Council tenant, to have several dogs in their property, despite Mr X reporting noise and smells in relation to the dogs. The Council’s decision to give permission was made in its capacity as social landlord. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing.
8. Mr X also reported rubbish at his neighbour’s property, which the Council addressed through his housing management team because it related to a council property. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing.
9. Mr X also made several reports about noise from his neighbour’s property. In its complaint response, the Council explained the noise reports were investigated by its community protection team, which had issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW) in August 2024, after witnessing the noise. The Council has taken the action we would expect. The CPW will remain in place for 12 months. The Council has explained Mr X can report any future noise incidents and it will take action to address any breaches by the neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation, and it is unlikely that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.
10. The Council held an ASB case review in October 2024, in which it said it would speak to the neighbour about mediation. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had not done this, for which it apologised, and it said it would do so. It added that when mediation had been suggested previously, the neighbour had not agreed to it. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify further investigation.
11. For the reasons set out above, we will not consider this complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate complaints about the management of social housing. We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s handling of anti-social behaviour reports because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman