London Borough of Redbridge (20 014 185)

Category : Housing > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 25 Jan 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take action about the antisocial behaviour from her neighbours since June 2019. Ms X says her neighbours actions put her safety at risk and has impacted her mental health. Ms X says her neighbour’s relatives are also harassing her for complaining to the Council. The Ombudsman found fault with the Council for its inaction and delays in handling Ms X’s concerns. The Ombudsman also found fault with the Council’s record keeping creating uncertainty about the Council’s investigations. The Council agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to open a new investigation for Ms X into her concerns and follows its procedure in completing these investigations. The Council also agreed to provide Ms X with an apology and a payment of £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complained the Council failed to take action about the antisocial behaviour from her neighbours since June 2019. This included complaints about noise nuisance, threats of violence, harassment and dumping rubbish.
  2. Ms X says her neighbours actions put her safety at risk and has impacted her mental health. Ms X says her neighbour’s relatives are also harassing her for complaining to the Council.
  3. Ms X also says she has had to stay out of her property at financial cost because of the issues with her neighbours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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

  1. I have considered all the information Ms X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
  2. Ms X and the Council provided comments on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Anti-Social Behaviour

  1. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced significant changes to the way councils, police and other agencies respond to anti-social behaviour (ASB). This came into effect in October 2014.
  2. Under this Act the Council can issue a Community Protection Notice (CPN) if it has previously given the person or body concerned a written warning and the officer is satisfied that;
    • the conduct of the individual or body is having a harmful effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, and
    • the conduct is unreasonable.
  3. The notice will direct the individual, business or organisation responsible to stop causing the problem and it could also require the person responsible to take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not occur again.

Statutory noise nuisance

  1. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) places a duty on councils to investigate any complaints of ‘statutory nuisance’. Statutory nuisance is a term commonly applied to the impact of noise from a property. For a noise to amount to a statutory nuisance it must do one of the following:
    • Unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property.
    • Injure health or be likely to injure health.
  2. There is no set level at which noise becomes a statutory nuisance. The Council’s role is to make a judgement considering several factors such as the activity, locality, time of day, frequency and duration of the noise.
  3. The Council is required to investigate complaints of noise nuisance. It will gather evidence to find out whether the noise is causing a statutory nuisance. If it finds the noise is a statutory nuisance it must act to stop it. The Council must issue an abatement notice if it is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists.
  4. If a person breaks an abatement notice they will be guilty of an offence. A person committing an offence is liable to a fine on conviction by a Court.

Council’s policies on investigating antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance

  1. The Council’s policy for handling complaints about antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance consists of four main stages before closure.

Stage 1 - Report

  1. Following a complaint about antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance the Council says it will carry out an initial assessment of the situation to decide the priority of the response. The Council will also decide if the alleged offence would fall under antisocial behaviour or statutory noise nuisance.
  2. If the Council decides the information provided does not constitute antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance it will contact the complainant explaining why.
  3. Where a complaint meets the definition of antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance the Council will pass this over for investigation.

Stage 2 – Investigation

  1. Once passed for investigation, the Council officer will contact the complainant to arrange an appointment to discuss the issues.
  2. If the matter is a one-off issue of noise nuisance the Council will close the matter and advise a person how to report repeat allegations of noise nuisance. The Council officer may send an advisory letter to the alleged perpetrator to try to prevent a repeat occurrence.
  3. If the Council keeps a case open it should complete a victim risk assessment. If, during the investigation, the Council finds something does not meet the definition of antisocial behaviour it should explain this to the complainant and close the case.
  4. Where the investigation is about noise nuisance the Council will await information from its noise recording application (Noise app) recordings from the complainant before moving to assessment.
  5. Where the report is about antisocial behaviour it will consider what further investigation it needs to complete, such as speaking to known or potential witnesses or victims. The officer should also speak to the perpetrator except in exceptional circumstances.

Stage 3 – assessment and action

  1. Where the report consists of noise nuisance the Council officer will review the Noise App recordings and any other incidents that have been witnessed to decide if the threshold of statutory nuisance has been met.
  2. If the Council officer considers the statutory nuisance threshold has been met the officer should take relevant action in line with the Environmental Protection Act. If the Council considers the threshold for statutory noise nuisance has not been met the officer should consider if there is enough evidence to prove the threshold for antisocial behaviour.
  3. Where the report consists of antisocial behaviour, the Council officer should review the evidence and decide whether the threshold for antisocial behaviour has been met.
  4. If the Council officer decides someone committed antisocial behaviour it should take relevant action. The Council’s first step at dealing with antisocial behaviour is prevention. The Council says it will try to use prevention techniques to deter people from engaging in antisocial behaviour and to stop incidents from escalating. This includes information provided to tenants before moving into a property, warnings and cautions issued to tenants if someone reports antisocial behaviour, mediation between disputing parties and drawing up acceptable behaviour agreements between disputing parties.
  5. The Council’s policy also says it can take enforcement action if it considers this suitable on an individual case. The Council says it will take enforcement action where it is necessary to protect victims of antisocial behaviour.
  6. The enforcement action available to the Council includes:
    • A Civil Injunction which makes future actions a breach of the injunction and a civil contempt of court.
    • Possession proceedings whereby the Council seeks to reclaim the tenant’s home if a tenant has breached an obligation in their tenancy agreement.
  7. If the Council officer decides there was no antisocial behaviour they should tell the complainant about the decision and explain their reasons.

Stage 4 – Monitor

  1. Where the Council found antisocial behaviour or noise nuisance it should continue to monitor the situation for three months after it has taken relevant action from Stage 3.

Council’s non-secure (temporary) accommodation agreement and Tenancy Code of Conduct

  1. A resident housed by the Council in temporary accommodation has responsibilities under the tenancy agreement signed before entering the property. The resident must not:
    • Allow rubbish to collect on a property and ensure safe and proper disposal of all rubbish.
    • Cause a nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to neighbours or other people living in the locality of their home. This includes making excessive noise inside or in the locality of their home.
    • Harass anybody in the locality of their home including violence or threats of violence, verbal abuse or damage to home or belongings.
  2. The Council’s Tenancy Code of Conduct says the provider of the accommodation will complete an investigation into any complaint about a Service User’s behaviour and decide if this is in breach of the tenancy agreement.
  3. The provider should interview the Service User, and where possible the complainant. The provider should record the interview(s) and records of its investigation on the Service User’s file.
  4. If the provider upholds a complaint, it will warn the Service User in writing. This warning will advise that continuation of breaching the conditions of their Tenancy Agreement could result in eviction from the property without rehousing by the Council.
  5. If a further serious and substantiated complaint is made about a Service User. the provider will write a second warning letter to the Service User. The provider should then pass the matter to the Council for consideration.

Council complaints procedure

  1. The Council has a two-stage corporate complaints process.
  2. At Stage 1 the Council will investigate a person’s complaint and provide a response within 10 working days.
  3. If a person is dissatisfied with the Stage 1 response they can request a Stage 2 response from the Council.
  4. The Council will provide a Stage 2 complaint response within 20 workings days of a person’s request.

What Happened

  1. New neighbours moved into the property next door to Ms X on 31 May 2019. The Council housed Ms X’s neighbours in the property under a Temporary Accommodation arrangement.
  2. Ms X complained to the Lettings Agents in June 2019 about the actions of the new tenants. The Lettings Agents wrote to Ms X’s neighbours on 28 June 2019 to advise about complaints about shouting and screaming, loud music, domestic disturbances and threatening behaviour. The Lettings Agents advised Ms X’s neighbours this was the first and final warning and if it continued to receive complaints it would tell the Council and this could result in eviction.
  3. The Lettings Agents invited residents of the properties near Ms X’s house to attend a meeting to discuss the issues. Ms X did not attend this meeting and the attendees did not raise issues about Ms X’s neighbours.
  4. Ms X complained to the Council about noise nuisance and issues with her neighbours on 10 July 2019. Ms X also complained to the police about her neighbours.
  5. The Council sent a first warning letter to Ms X’s neighbours on 21 July 2019.
  6. Ms X continued to complain to the Council, her councillor and the police about the neighbours. Ms X reported various incidents of banging walls, shouting and screaming to the Council up to 2 August 2019.
  7. The Council contacted Ms X on 3 August 2019 to advise it sent her neighbours an advisory letter on 21 July 2019 and it would need to witness a noise nuisance before it could act.
  8. Ms X’s councillor contacted the Council’s Community Protection Team on 5 August 2019. The councillor told the Council about the noise nuisance and breach of tenancy lease agreement. The councillor asked the Council to investigate the complaint.
  9. The Council spoke with Ms X on 11 August 2019 and told her it considered the noise was “acceptable living noise”.
  10. Ms X contacted the Council on 12 August 2019 and disputed the Council’s position. The Council responded to advise the noise Ms X explained was normal noise for a family with young children and not statutory noise nuisance.
  11. The Council’s Community Protection Team wrote to Ms X’ councillor on 20 August 2019 and advised it would review Ms X’s complaint.
  12. Ms X contacted her councillor on 30 August 2019 to advise the situation was getting worse. Ms X also contacted the Council on 15 September 2019 to report further incidents with her neighbours. Ms X said she received verbal abuse and threats from her neighbours. The Council told Ms X threats and abuse are matters for the police and not the Council. The Council also told Ms X its noise nuisance team was busy completing a constant operation in a specific area of Redbridge so could not help Ms X. The Council said this operation did not have an end date.
  13. Ms X complained to her councillor again on 30 October 2019 and contacted the Council on 11 November 2019 to report further issues of noise nuisance.
  14. Ms X’s councillor contacted the Council on 14 November 2019 asking the Council to act in response to Ms X’s complaint.
  15. The Council installed noise monitoring equipment into Ms X’s property from 15 November 2019 to 27 November 2019.
  16. A council officer listened to the noise recordings and decided there was “no evidence of noise”. The Council wrote to Ms X on 28 November 2019 that it could not witness a statutory noise nuisance.
  17. Ms X’s councillor contacted the Council for an update on 4 December 2019. The Council told the councillor on 12 December 2019 that it had attended the street on several unannounced visits and installed noise monitoring equipment. The Council said it had witnessed no evidence of statutory noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour. The Council advised it had closed Ms X’s complaint.
  18. Ms X complained to the Council, her councillor, her MP and the police about issues with her neighbours on 22 February 2020. Ms X said her neighbours played loud music, littered and dealt drugs at the property.
  19. The police started an investigation into issues surrounding Ms X’s complaint about drugs.
  20. Ms X’s MP contacted the Council about Ms X’s complaint on 11 March 2020.
  21. The Council responded to Ms X’s MP to advise it had already investigated Ms X’s concerns and found no evidence to support intervention by the Council.
  22. On 4 April 2020, Ms X complained to the police about threats of violence from her neighbours. The police attended and discussed the matter with Ms X and her neighbours. The police did not have evidence to substantiate Ms X’s complaint and reported this to the Council.
  23. Ms X also reported this issue to her MP and her councillor. Ms X said the Council was not taking any responsibility. Ms X’s councillor contacted the Council about the antisocial behaviour of Ms X’s neighbours.
  24. Ms X provided the Council with details of the issues and evidence of the litter. Ms X told the Council she had moved out of her home and a charity had offered her respite because of the issues with her neighbours.
  25. On 21 April 2020, the Council asked the Lettings Agents to send a letter to Ms X’s neighbours about disposal of litter and to offer mediation between Ms X and her neighbours. The Lettings Agent did not send the letter but planned to visit Ms X’s neighbour instead. The Council also wrote to Ms X’s councillor advising it had closed the case in December 2019 after finding the complaint unsubstantiated.
  26. Ms X complained to the Council on 23 April 2020. Ms X said her neighbours dump waste in her garden, threaten her with violence and make noise nuisance. Ms X complained about her neighbours using cannabis and the smell this causes. Ms X also said a councillor attended her neighbours property on 16 November 2019 to advise about the noise monitoring equipment which resulted in them being quiet while the noise recording equipment was in place.
  27. The Lettings Agents attended the neighbours property on 24 April 2020 and took photographs showing Ms X’s neighbours had cleared the rubbish. The Lettings Agents advised Ms X to report noise nuisance to the Council and offered mediation between Ms X and her neighbours.
  28. The Lettings Agent discussed with Ms X and her neighbour in June 2020 about arranging mediation. The Lettings Agents provided a statement from Ms X’s neighbours on 23 June 2020 following a discussion with them.
  29. Ms X declined the offer of mediation on 1 July 2020. The Lettings Agents attended the property on 1 July 2020, took photographs of the garden and asked the Council what it proposed to do next given Ms X’s rejection of mediation.
  30. The Council discussed the matter with Ms X’s neighbours on 2 July 2020 and took a statement about the issues from Ms X’s neighbours.
  31. The Council responded to the councillor on 2 July 2020. It advised it had reviewed the information Ms X’s provided and it did not consider this was antisocial behaviour. The Council also advised it had attended reports immediately but found no evidence to substantiate antisocial behaviour. The Council said the evidence does not show the level of intrusion or disruption alleged by Ms X but it is continuing to investigate.
  32. Ms X attended mediation with her neighbours in September 2020. The mediation service could not find a solution between Ms X and her neighbours. The mediation service told the Lettings Agents about the outcome.
  33. Ms X complained to the Council on 30 September 2020. Ms X complained Council had not taken action about the issues she reported about her neighbours antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. Ms X also complained the Council had placed unvetted tenants into the property.
  34. The Council provided a Stage 1 complaint response to Ms X on 13 November 2020. The Council said:
    • It sent a warning letter to Ms X’s neighbours on 28 June 2019.
    • It arranged a meeting for 4 July 2019 but no one raised issues about Ms X’s neighbours at this meeting.
    • It had completed unannounced visits following Ms X’s complaint but had not witnessed antisocial behaviour or statutory noise nuisance.
    • It installed noise recording equipment on 15 November 2019 for 12 days but found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
    • It had liaised with the police about threats of violence in April 2020 but the police said it could not substantiate reports because of lack of independent witnesses.
    • It asked the Lettings Agents to send a letter in April 2020 to Ms X’s neighbours.
    • It arranged mediation but this was not successful.
    • It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint as it had found no evidence of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour. The Council also said it found no evidence it had failed to follow its procedure.
  35. Ms X requested a Stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2020. Ms X asked why the Council had taken no further action since the written warning on 28 June 2019. Ms X also advised she could not attend the meeting on 4 July 2019 because of limited notice. Ms X also said the Council told her not to make further noise nuisance complaints in November 2019 so this is why she did not contact the noise nuisance department again.
  36. Ms X reported banging on the walls, screaming and shouting to the noise nuisance team on 16 January 2021. The Council advised Ms X to use its Noise App to record the noise. Ms X provided evidence of recorded noises on 18 January 2021.
  37. The Council sent its Stage 2 complaint response to Ms X on 23 March 2021. The Council said it took correct action and found no evidence of noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour.
  38. The Council’s noise nuisance team wrote to Ms X on 26 March 2021. It advised it had installed noise recording equipment into Ms X’s property in November 2019 and had found no evidence of noise nuisance. The Council said it had also reviewed Ms X’s Noise App recordings but found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance.
  39. Ms X made a second Stage 1 complaint with the Council on 4 May 2021. Ms X raised concerns about antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance from her neighbours.
  40. Ms X also complained to the Council’s noise nuisance team about her neighbours playing loud music on 14 May 2021. The Council gave Ms X a direct contact number to report noise nuisances to it so it could attend to witness.
  41. The Council provided its second Stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2021. The Council said the Lettings Agents asked the Council to consider moving the household following the failed mediation. The Council said it did not consider it fair to move tenants without evidence to substantiate it. The Council said the Lettings Agents had the power to terminate the placement but the Lettings Agents chose not to do this. The Council also said it had reviewed Ms X’s 38 hours of noise recordings from 12 February 2021 to 25 March 2021 using the Noise App but did not consider this a statutory noise nuisance.
  42. Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 on 27 May 2021.
  43. The Council provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 25 June 2021. The Council said it would consider further complaints and evidence of noise nuisance on their own merits. The Council said it must have evidence to support a decision to evict tenants.
  44. Ms X disputed the Council’s Stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2021.

Analysis

  1. In understanding our decision it is important to consider the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define the law.
  2. The Ombudsman must decide if the Council has considered the relevant legislation and policies in making its decisions. If the Council has considered the relevant policies and reached a suitable decision in line with these policies, the Ombudsman cannot find fault.

Antisocial behaviour, littering and noise nuisance

  1. Ms X complained the Council failed to take action about the antisocial behaviour from her neighbours since June 2019. This included complaints about noise nuisance, threats of violence, harassment and dumping rubbish
  2. Ms X raised her complaints with the Lettings Agents first. The Lettings Agents issued a warning letter to her neighbours shortly following Ms X’s contact and invited residents to a meeting to discuss issues.
  3. I do not find fault with how the Lettings Agents managed Ms X’s contacts in June and July 2019. The Lettings Agents sent a warning letter about conduct and arranged a meeting to discuss issues. Ms X not attending this meeting is not the fault of the Lettings Agents.
  4. The Lettings Agents acted in line with the Council’s temporary accommodation agreement and Code of Conduct. I do not find fault.
  5. Following Ms X’s contact with the Council on 10 July 2019 the Council decided the issue could be antisocial behaviour and passed it over to Stage 2 of its process. The Council sent an advisory letter to Ms X’s neighbours on 21 July 2019 about the issues Ms X complained about and treated the matter as a one-off occurrence.
  6. The Council followed its policy in July 2019 and I do not find fault.
  7. Since Ms X brought to the complaint directly to the Council, the Lettings Agents did not advance with this matter through the temporary accommodation tenancy agreement after the June 2019 warning letter. I do not find fault with the Lettings Agents as Ms X chose to complain to the Council instead.
  8. The Council decided Ms X’s contacts at the start of August 2019 did not justify progression beyond Stage 1 of its antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance procedure. The Council made this decision because it considered the banging of doors Ms X was experiencing was normal household noise rather than statutory noise nuisance. The Council explained this to Ms X. The Council has followed its policy and I do not find fault.
  9. Following Ms X’s contact, her councillor asked the Council to investigate Ms X’s complaint. The Council told Ms X’s councillor it would review Ms X’s complaints on 20 August 2019. The Council did not complete a review of Ms X’s antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance complaints. The Council failed to take the action it promised. This is fault.
  10. When Ms X contacted the Council on 15 September 2019, it told Ms X it could not investigate her complaints. It said it could not investigate because its noise nuisance team was busy completing a different operation permanently with no known end date. A council cannot withdraw all access to its noise nuisance service because it is completing other works. While there may be occasions that a Council’s noise nuisance service is busy this cannot be a complete withdrawal of the service. This is fault.
  11. When Ms X contacted the Council again at the end of October 2019, the Council agreed to install noise monitoring equipment into Ms X’s property. The Council installed the noise monitoring equipment in line with Stage 2 of the Council’s antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance procedure. However, the Council did not complete a “victim assessment form” for Ms X according to its Stage 2 procedure. This is fault.
  12. The Council officer noted in the Council’s records they listened to the noise recordings from the noise monitoring equipment and there was no evidence of noise. The Council acted in line with Stage 3 of its policy and wrote to Ms X explaining it found “no evidence of noise” and closed Ms X’s complaint. It is not for the Ombudsman to question the professional judgement of the council employee when there is no evidence of fault in how it was made. I do not find fault with how the Council handled Ms X’s complaints in November 2019 and December 2019.
  13. While I do not find fault with how the Council handled Ms X’s complaint, the Council officer’s notes of the noise recordings simply state there was “no evidence of noise”. If the noise recording equipment detected no noise this would mean it has not even recorded noise Ms X made and this could mean there was a fault with the recording equipment. If the noise recording device did record noise but the Council officer did not consider this a “noise nuisance” the Council officer has not recorded this clearly in their notes. There is limited information detailed by the Council officer creating uncertainty over their investigation, this is fault.
  14. Ms X complained to the Council again about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour in February 2020. The Council failed to log Ms X’s complaints about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour or respond to Ms X. However, the Council did respond to Ms X’s MP in March 2020 but only to advise it had closed the December 2019 complaint. Failure to log Ms X’s complaints of antisocial behaviour or follow its procedure is fault.
  15. Ms X reported further issues of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance to the Council in April 2020. The Council again failed to log Ms X’s complaints through its antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance procedure or respond to Ms X. This is fault.
  16. However, the Council did contact the Lettings Agents on 21 April 2020. The Council asked the Lettings Agents to send an advisory letter as part of the temporary accommodation agreement and Tenancy Code of Conduct about the problems with disposal of litter.
  17. The Lettings Agents picked up the matter by instead attending the property on 24 April 2020 to ensure Ms X’s neighbour’s had cleared the litter. The photographs from the visits on 24 April 2020 show Ms X’s neighbour’s had cleared the litter.
  18. Since Ms X’s neighbours removed the rubbish in the garden, there would be no need for the Lettings Agents to escalate this matter further. The Lettings Agents has taken appropriate steps following contact from the Council. I do not find fault with the actions of the Lettings Agent.
  19. The Lettings Agents also followed the temporary accommodation agreement and Tenancy Code of Conduct in June 2020 by getting a statement from Ms X’s neighbours. The Lettings Agents also tried to arrange mediation to find an informal route to resolution of the issues between Ms X and her neighbours. I do not find fault with how the Lettings Agents managed this matter from April 2020 to June 2020.
  20. The Lettings Agents acted correctly in referring this matter back to the Council on 1 July 2020. It was the Council’s decision to make about the existence of antisocial behaviour and the next steps.
  21. In the letter of 2 July 2020 to Ms X’s councillor, the Council advised it had attended reports of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance by Ms X. But, the Council’s complaint records for noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour say Ms X did not contact it from November 2019 until January 2021. The Council has no records of logging any complaints or completing any visits to investigate Ms X’s concerns from November 2019 to January 2021. The Council’s records do not reflect the information it provided to Ms X’s councillor. The lack of accurate records by the Council creates uncertainty about the Council’s investigations and actions. This is fault.
  22. When Ms X contacted the Council again in January 2021, it correctly logged her complaints about noise nuisance and provided Ms X with information about recording noise nuisance using the Council’s Noise App.
  23. The Council opened a new investigation in January 2021 and engaged with Ms X in getting noise recordings from her. The Council notes state it listened to the recordings. The Council wrote to Ms X on 26 March 2021 to advise it found no evidence of statutory noise nuisance following its review of her Noise App recordings. The Council has acted correctly in line with Stages 1, 2 and 3 of its noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour procedure and I do not find fault.
  24. However, the Council’s records only state it “did not feel that the recordings were enough to be a stat nuisance”. The Council’s records show no analysis or notes about the recordings. The limited information from the Council’s records again creates uncertainty about the Council’s investigation. This is fault.
  25. Following Ms X’s complaint on 14 May 2021 the Council has noted that it provided Ms X with a direct contact number to the noise nuisance team to report further incidents of noise nuisance. This is the first notes the Council has made of providing Ms X with a direct contact number to report noise nuisance. It took the Council two years to provide this number to Ms X. This is fault.
  26. The Council decided on 24 May 2021 it did not have enough evidence to substantiate antisocial behaviour or a breach of the temporary accommodation tenancy agreement by Ms X’s neighbours. The Council decided it would be unfair to move Ms X’s neighbours given the lack of evidence it found to support this course of action. I do not find fault with the Council refusing to terminate temporary accommodation if its investigation has not found evidence of a breach of a tenancy agreement or the Tenancy Code of Conduct.

Complaint handling

  1. Ms X went through the Council’s corporate complaints process twice.
  2. Ms X raised her first Stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2020. The Council provided its first Stage 1 complaint response on 13 November 2020. It took the Council 32 working days to provide the first Stage 1 response. This is 22 working days outside the timescale set out in the Council’s complaint procedure.
  3. Ms X raised her first Stage 2 complaint on 1 December 2020. The Council provided its first Stage 2 complaint response on 23 March 2021. It took the Council 77 working days to provide the first Stage 2 response. This is 57 working days outside the timescale set out in the Council’s complaint procedure.
  4. Ms X raised her second Stage 1 complaint on 4 May 2021. The Council provided its second Stage 1 complaint response on 24 May 2021. It took the Council 14 working days to provide the second Stage 1 response. This is 4 working days outside the timescale set out in the Council’s complaint procedure.
  5. Ms X raised her second Stage 2 complaint on 27 May 2021. The Council provided its second Stage 2 complaint response on 25 June 2021. It took the Council 20 working days to provide the first Stage 2 response. The Council met the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.
  6. From 30 September 2020 to 25 June 2021, the Council delayed for a total of 83 working days outside its complaint timescales in responding to Ms X’s complaints. This amounts to roughly four and a half months of delays. This is fault by the Council.

Impact on Ms X

  1. The Council’s fault has caused Ms X to suffer an injustice through both its handling of her noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour complaints and through Council delays.
  2. The Council’s failure to complete the promised review and withdrawal of its entire noise nuisance service from 20 August 2019 to 15 November 2019 caused Ms X two months of delays. This caused Ms X frustration and distress through the fault and inaction of the Council.
  3. The Council also failed to take action from 22 February 2020 2 July 2020 in response to Ms X’s noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour complaints. While Ms X took part in mediation in September 2020, she did not contact the Council’s noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour team again until January 2021. Ms X explained the issues with her neighbour were continuing during this time.
  4. The Council’s failure to act on or respond to Ms X’s complaint from February 2020 to July 2020 caused Ms X and injustice through distress and inconvenience at not having her concerns investigated. This also caused Ms X to become disenfranchised with the Council services.
  5. The Council’s records also create uncertainty about the suitability of the Council’s investigation into Ms X’s concerns about antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance by her neighbours. Ms X has experienced over two years of distress from her neighbour’s actions with uncertainty over whether the Council has acted in line with its policies.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
    • Apologise to Ms X and pay her £500 for the frustration and distress she has experienced through the Council’s delays and inaction.
    • Open new antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance investigation into Ms X’s concerns and follow the process outlined in its antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance policy. The Council should ensure it keeps suitable records of its investigations.
  2. Within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
    • Provide training to its noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour teams about the importance of accurate recording keeping in complaints about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour. This should include training about logging complaints, recording notes of site visits and analysis of evidence such as noise recordings.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault by the Council as the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings