Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to act on antisocial behaviour by her neighbour, misled her about the action it intended to take, accused her of lying and failed to properly consider her complaint. The Council failed, on several occasions, to visit Ms B’s property to identify any issues, misled her about the action it would take, failed to always keep her up-to-date with what was happening and failed to investigate part of her concern about her neighbour’s actions properly. I am satisfied the Council took action to deal with Ms B’s concerns about smells and dealt with her complaint properly. An apology, payment to Ms B, reminder to officers and a meeting with Ms B is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms B, complained the Council:
• failed to act on antisocial behaviour by her neighbour;
• misled her about the action it intended to take and accused her of lying; and
• failed to properly consider her complaint.
2. Ms B says the Council’s failure to act has left her living in a property with a smell of excrement, urine, bins, blocked drains and rotting food. Ms B says she does not feel able to move around her home freely due to fearing aggression from her neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We consider 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. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Ms B and the organisation 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

What should have happened

8. The Council’s self-neglect and hoarding protocol (the protocol) says managing the balance between protecting adults at risk from self-neglect or hoarding behaviours against their right to self-determination is a serious challenge. It says self-neglect and hoarding behaviours can also put neighbours, family and animals at risk of harm.
9. The protocol says multiagency partnership working is the best way to determine the most favourable approach for achieving engagement with the adult.
10. The protocol says before escalation to the self-neglect and hoarding panel is considered an assessment of need will be completed. Following that a multiagency meeting will be convened within two weeks of the referral.
11. The protocol says the purpose of the meeting is to establish the assessed needs of the adult, the level of risk to the individual and others and the person’s engagement or lack of with the interventions. The meeting will then agree actions which may include formal intervention using legislation but may involve less formal interventions such as cleanup arrangements or an ongoing support package.
12. For section 79 and 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the protocol says the Council has a legal duty to investigate complaints of statutory nuisance and must take action if nuisance is proven. It says the premises must be in such a state that they are prejudicial to health or are a nuisance to neighbours.
13. The Council’s public protection enforcement policy (the policy) says the method of enforcement selected should be calculated to produce the highest reasonable standards of compliance within the least time where practicable. The policy says depending on the seriousness of the situation the preference will be to enforce with moderation in the first instance.
14. The policy says as part of assessing what enforcement action is necessary proportionate consideration will be given to various factors which includes the general cooperativeness of the offender. A process of escalation will be used under normal circumstances until compliance is reached.

What happened

15. Ms B lives in a block of flats owned by a housing association. The complaint concerns the Council’s response to the actions of her downstairs neighbour.
16. In January 2021 Ms B contacted the noise and nuisance team at the Council about her neighbour. Ms B raised concerns her neighbour was unable to care for himself and complained about smells emanating from the flat and coming into the common areas and her own flat. Ms B told the Council she had reported the issues to the housing association but they had not been rectified. The Council asked Ms B for further information and pointed out it would not be able to share full information with her as there could be sensitive and confidential issues relating to her neighbour. Ms B provided the clarification the Council asked for.
17. In February 2021 the Council contacted the housing association to find out whether Ms B’s neighbour was currently under the Council’s adult social care self-neglect and hoarding protocol and if not whether an urgent self-neglect and hoarding referral could be made for him. The Council subsequently made the referral as it had not heard from the housing association.
18. On 11 February the Council told Ms B adult social care were involved and would contact the landlord and visit her neighbour.
19. On a visit to Ms B’s neighbour some deficiencies with the property were identified and the Council arranged a multidisciplinary meeting. That meeting took place on 18 February. The meeting agreed social care and the housing association would take the lead and the immediate response would be for regular cleaning to be undertaken in the common areas of the property, extra collections of waste would be undertaken and waste bags would be provided. The Council told Ms B about the outcome of the meeting on 2 March and told her a further meeting would take place the following week.
20. A second multidisciplinary meeting took place on 3 March. The housing association did not attend that meeting. The Council arranged for adult social care and the private sector housing team to attend the neighbour’s flat on 9 March with a view to taking enforcement action against the housing association in relation to the common parts of the building.
21. Council officers attempted to visit Ms B’s neighbour on 9 March but could not gain access to the property. Council officers identified no smells, rubbish bags or evidence of waste in the common areas, yard or living areas and no nuisance was witnessed.
22. Council officers carried out a further visit on 23 March and identified no nuisance in the common areas.
23. At the end of March social care noted a full clear out and clean was required of the neighbour’s property along with repairs, which had been agreed with the housing association and would take between 6-8 weeks to arrange.
24. Ms B contacted the Council for an update on 26 April. The Council told Ms B if she continued to experience smells she should contact environmental health and an officer would visit the same day. The Council told Ms B the works would be undertaken in the basement flat over the next few months.
25. On 24 May the housing association confirmed contractors had visited the property and scheduled repair works. The property was also to be cleared and cleaned before repairs were undertaken.
26. Ms B contacted the Council again on 8 June to report smells. The Council passed the information onto the housing association and asked it to arrange for the common parts to be cleaned, for foul waste to be removed and to liaise with the residents about the day-to-day experiences in the building. In response the housing association told the Council it had carried out a bio clean at the building and that other residents had not raised any issues. The housing association told the Council it was waiting for a date to clean the inside of Ms B’s neighbour’s property.
27. At the end of June 2021 Ms B provided the Council with a detailed history of the case which included details of repair issues at her property. Ms B told the Council she had already provided that information to the housing association. The Council passed those matters onto the housing association and told Ms B it had done that. The Council told Ms B it had an action plan in place to deal with the issues with her neighbour which it could not share due to the confidential nature of the matters.
28. In July 2021 the housing association told the Council the basement flat had received a deep clean and all scheduled repair works, including to the drainage system, had been completed. The Council asked the housing association whether there was further and ongoing support and assistance being provided to the resident to ensure he continued to keep the property in a good state and to prevent him from causing a nuisance or antisocial behaviour for the residents in the building.
29. In September 2021 Ms B reported smells coming again from the neighbouring property. The Council said it would discuss that with the self-neglect and hoarding panel. The Council asked Ms B to continue to report any issues with smells, pests, storage of waste in the common areas or lack of cleaning to the Council. The Council said it was happy to visit as required. The Council also provided details for its noise and nuisance team and told Ms B it had an out of hours service.
30. On 15 November a member of the Council’s private sector housing team visited Ms B’s property and did not identify any category 1 hazards, although there was an issue with installation of an electrical socket above the cooker. The officer did not identify any nuisance smells within the property or common areas during the visit. The Council told Ms B to take enforcement action the Council would have to witness a nuisance and that would normally be in exceptional circumstances when dealing with a resident under the self-neglect and hoarding panel.
31. On 26 November the housing association wrote to Ms B’s neighbour to advise that further cleaning and cooperation was required. The housing association offered support to work with the resident to resolve the issues and support needs.
32. The Council emailed Ms B on 24 December to outline how the issues with her neighbour were being addressed. The Council reminded Ms B formal enforcement action was not the first step.
33. The Council held a joint meeting with the housing association on 17 January 2022 to discuss next steps. The meeting arranged for a joint visit to assess. That visit took place on 21 January. The Council identified some issues with cleanliness in the property although officers noted some cleaning had taken place.
34. The Council contacted the housing association on 27 January to inform it of possible enforcement action against it. In response the housing association agreed to undertake any works required and said it would work with the Council. In response the Council outlined the defects that required resolution. That included works to Ms B’s neighbour’s flat.
35. A multidisciplinary meeting took place on 31 January. A deep clean of the flat was arranged for 1 February. The housing association agreed to investigate and remedy other issues including pest control. The Council said it would visit the property early in February to decide if the Council needed to pursue an alternative course of action. The housing association subsequently confirmed cleaners were on site and said it would provide dates when the other issues with the property would be addressed. The housing association provided an update on action dates later that month.
36. The Council updated Ms B on 1 February. The Council said it would visit later that month to verify that the issues had been resolved.
37. The Council held a case conference with the housing association on 14 February which provided updates on the work undertaken. That included some repairs and cleaning of the neighbouring property. The Council decided enforcement action against the housing association was not necessary given the action taken.
38. A Council officer visited the neighbour’s flat on 16 February and identified that it was looking clean and hygienic with no noticeable smell. A further visit took place on 21 February when no issues were identified.
39. On 22 February the Council offered to visit Ms B at her flat when the next visit to her neighbour’s flat took place. Ms B told the Council she did not want meetings taking place in her home.
40. A Council officer visited Ms B’s neighbour on 24 February and identified that works had been completed to resolve hazards. Officers did not identify any nuisance or smells in the common areas. The Council emailed Ms B with an update following the visit.
41. On 28 February Council officers met with the housing association and both agreed monthly meetings would take place to monitor and review the situation.
42. Ms B reported further smells on 2 March. Ms B also raised concerns about some repair issues in her property contributing to the problem and said those were issues the housing association had agreed to resolve but had not. The Council offered to visit. The Council also liaised with the housing association which told the Council it had completed all the works agreed and that its understanding was Ms B intended to undertake installation of her own flooring in the bathroom, which the housing association had agreed to.
43. Ms B reported an horrendous smell in her property on 7 March. An officer visited on 8 March and identified a stale smell in Ms B’s hallway and bathroom. The Council contacted the housing association to discuss. The Council subsequently arranged a joint visit with the housing association to Ms B’s property which was due to take place on 23 March. That had to be cancelled as the housing association officer had COVID-19. The visit was rearranged to 14 April. However, due to a miscommunication the housing association officer attempted to visit on 12 April when Ms B was not available.
44. On 13 April a Council officer visited Ms B’s neighbour and identified that the condition and hygiene of the flat was still good. The officer recorded that although there was an odour it was not as strong or overpowering. At a visit on 19 April the social worker reached the same conclusion.
45. On 12 May Council officers and the housing association visited Ms B and accessed the basement flat. Officers witnessed a smell in Ms B’s hall and bathroom and when visiting the basement flat noted that the flat was in a very poor state of cleaning with a strong smell. The officers reminded Ms B’s neighbour he needed to clean up and have a regular cleaning plan in place.
46. Ms B reported further smells and noise on 20 May. A housing association officer visited but did not identify any smells.
47. Ms B reported further smells on 23 May and 31 May. On 31 May the Council served an Environmental Protection Act section 80 notice on Ms B’s neighbour, requiring abatement of the smell. When delivering the notice the officer confirmed a pungent smell in the common parts of the property outside Ms B’s flat. The officer delivering the notice told Ms B the notice gave Ms B’s neighbour 56 days to abate the smell nuisance.
48. On 6 June the housing association told the Council it had met with Ms B’s neighbour and he had agreed to put in place a direct debit for a cleaner.
49. Ms B reported further smells on 13 June and the housing association spoke to her on 14 June to discuss some options to mitigate smells in her own property.
50. Ms B reported further smells on 23 June. The Council asked the housing association for an update on the cleaning plan as it appeared the situation was deteriorating again. The Council contacted Ms B when she reported further smells to advise that the notice required her neighbour to resolve the issues with smells within 56 days of the notice being served.
51. On 23 July Ms B contacted the Council to tell it her bathroom smelled of urine and bins and had done so all week. The Council asked the housing association for an update.
52. Following a social worker’s visit to Ms B’s neighbour on 4 August the Council was satisfied works had been undertaken to clean and clear the flat and reduce smells. Following a further visit on 16 August the Council was satisfied the flat was in a consistent clean state and free from smells and disrepair. The Council therefore agreed to cease the fortnightly catch ups with the housing association in favour of the housing association visiting monthly and reporting back any issues identified.
53. Council officers visited the neighbour’s property again on 31 August and did not identify any nuisance. Officers were satisfied the resident had made an effort to clean the flat and comply with the notice. The Council was satisfied the requirements of the enforcement notice had been complied with and therefore it intended to revoke the notice.
54. On 2 September the Council wrote to Ms B’s neighbour to revoke the notice. The Council also wrote to Ms B to update her and to tell her there would be ongoing monitoring. The Council told Ms B if there was a recurrence of the nuisance it would be picked up and dealt with swiftly.
55. Ms B reported continuing antisocial behaviour issues at the property and a slight smell, although it was better than before, on 28 September. The Council asked Ms B to report any further smells to environmental health so officers could visit. The Council told Ms B housing association officers would continue to carry out regular visits to the property to monitor the situation and that the Council would be able to quickly issue a notice if the situation deteriorated. The Council said it had referred the antisocial behaviour issues to the relevant team.

Analysis

56. Ms B says the Council failed to act when she reported antisocial behaviour by her neighbour. Ms B says she repeatedly reported smells coming from her neighbour’s property which were evident in her own property and in communal areas and the Council failed to take action to resolve it.
57. Having considered the documentary evidence I am satisfied the Council has taken a lot of action to resolve smells coming from Ms B’s neighbour's property. I note that since February 2021 the Council has taken the following action:
• held multidisciplinary team meetings;
• arranged, with the housing association, for cleaning of the neighbouring property and communal areas;
• referred Ms B's neighbour to adult social care;
• arranged a cleaning regime for Ms B’s neighbour to comply with;
• carried out regular liaison with the housing association which included regular meetings;
• carried out visits to the building and Ms B’s neighbour's property;
• visited Ms B’s property;
• threatened the housing association with enforcement action if action was not taken, which prompted repairs being undertaken in Ms B’s neighbour's property;
• carried out pest control measures in conjunction with the housing association; and
• served an Environmental Protection Act notice on Ms B’s neighbour.
58. The Council also continues to liaise with the housing association which carries out a monthly visit to ensure the situation does not deteriorate.
59. Given those actions I could not say the Council failed to deal with Ms B’s concerns about smells. The documentary evidence shows the action taken by the Council and housing association before the notice was served in May 2022 resulted in some improvements given follow-up visits by officers identified that the smells had decreased and there were gaps in Ms B reporting smells. I understand Ms B's concern though given the situation escalated again 2022, which resulted in the Council serving a notice on her neighbour. However, the Council will normally seek to resolve issues by informal means in the first instance rather than issuing a notice straightaway as it needs to give the perpetrator the opportunity to engage and take action. That is in accordance with the protocol and the Council’s policy and I therefore cannot criticise it. As I have made clear, the evidence I have seen satisfies me those measures initially made a difference. I am satisfied when it became clear to the Council that the situation was deteriorating again in May 2022 it acted appropriately by serving an enforcement notice on Ms B’s neighbour. I do not criticise the Council for seeking to resolve matters informally in the first instance and am satisfied the Council took more formal action when those measures did not result in a sustained improvement. I therefore do not criticise the Council for any perceived lack of action on smells.
60. I do, however, have some concerns about how the Council investigated the issue of smells. It is clear from the documentary evidence Ms B was regularly reporting smells permeating her own property and making some areas of her property unusable. In those circumstances I would have expected the Council, when visiting the building, to carry out regular visits to Ms B’s property to see whether the smells were causing an actionable nuisance in her property. While I appreciate the Council visited Ms B’s property on some occasions for the most part the Council visited the communal areas and the neighbouring property rather than visiting Ms B’s property to identify what smells were evident there. Failure to visit Ms B’s property more regularly when she reported smells in her property is fault. That has clearly led to Ms B to believe the Council was not taking her concerns seriously. However, as I said in the previous paragraph, I am satisfied the Council was taking action. The issue is therefore with the Council's communications with Ms B, which the Council accepts could have been better. So, while I consider the Council at fault for not including Ms B’s property in regular visits and for not keeping Ms B up-to-date as it should have done I do not consider it likely that resulted in any missed action on smells.
61. I am concerned though the Council raised Ms B’s expectations about what it would do and then failed to follow through on what it had said it would do. I am referring here to the information the Council gave Ms B on 27 April 2021 when the Council told Ms B if she reported smells to environmental health an officer would visit the same day. I have seen no evidence the Council followed through on that commitment given when Ms B reported smells on 8 June 2021 the Council did not send out an officer from environmental health and instead referred the matter to the housing association. Then, when Ms B reported further smells on 17 September 2021 the Council did not carry out a visit until November 2021. Given the Council had told Ms B it would visit when she reported smells failing to do so is fault. That is unlikely to have led Ms B to believe the Council was taking her concern seriously. Again though I am satisfied the Council was taking action and therefore the issue is with failing to follow through on what it agreed to do and in failing to communicate effectively with Ms B.
62. The other issue Ms B has raised is about antisocial behaviour by her neighbour. Ms B says her neighbour has been abusive, particularly towards women and she has altered her way of living so she can avoid contact with him. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms B has mentioned that to the Council several times, although I appreciate Ms B has not provided the Council with detailed information including dates. I would have expected the Council to have dealt with that matter alongside the issue of smells and there is no evidence the Council sought further information from Ms B about the issues to enable it to consider whether action was required. Indeed, as far as I can see the Council did not refer the matter to the community safety team for further investigation until October 2022. Failing to act on that earlier is fault.
63. I consider an appropriate outcome for the fault I have identified is for the Council to apologise to Ms B and pay her £300 to reflect her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and her frustration. I also recommended the Council remind officers dealing with environmental health cases of the need to include visits to the property of the person who has raised issues when those issues relate to matters which are affecting his or her property. I further recommended the Council prioritise a meeting with Ms B to discuss the ongoing antisocial behaviour issues, separate from the smell issues, investigate those issues and confirm to Ms B whether it intends to take action. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
64. Ms B says the Council wrongly accused her of lying and misled her about the action it intended to take. Ms B says this relates to discussions about the Council serving a notice on the housing association. It is not clear whether Ms B is referring to a notice relating to the failure to clean the communal areas of the building or a notice relating to an electrical socket in Ms B’s property. In either case though, having considered the documentary evidence I have found no evidence of officers telling Ms B they would be serving a notice on the housing association, although there is evidence in the documentary records of internal discussions at the Council about the potential for serving a notice on the housing association about the cleaning of the communal areas of the building. I appreciate it is likely any discussions about a notice being served were verbal discussions. In the absence of any documentary evidence I could not reach a safe conclusion about what was discussed between Council officers and Ms B. Nor could I say the Council misled Ms B given the lack of documentary evidence relating to the issues she has raised.
65. Ms B says the Council failed to properly consider her complaint and, in responding to her complaint, was indignant and patronising. Ms B also raises concerns the stage two response was written by one of the people she had complained about.
66. I am satisfied the Council properly considered the complaint at both stages. On some issues the Council accepted it had not acted appropriately and there is no evidence in the Council’s letters to suggest it was patronising or indignant. Nor have I found any evidence of fault in how the Council organised the complaint responses. The Council dealt with the complaint at stages one and two in accordance with its complaints procedure and there is no evidence the private sector housing manager, who is the officer Ms B is concerned about, provided either response. I appreciate the private sector housing manager may have provided information to the person completing the complaint response but that is normal practice and there is no evidence Ms B had made specific complaints about that officer. As I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council handled Ms B’s complaint I have no grounds to criticise it.

Back to top

Agreed action

67. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms B and pay her £300 to reflect her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and her frustration;
• remind officers dealing with environmental health cases of the need to include visits to the property of the person who has raised issues when those issues relate to matters which are affecting his or her property;
• remind officers of the need to keep those who have raised issues up-to-date with what is happening, as far as is possible without disclosing confidential information; and
• meet with Ms B to discuss the ongoing antisocial behaviour issues, separate from the smell issue, and discuss the options open to the Council and the evidence required for any formal action to be taken. The Council should then investigate those issues and confirm its findings to Ms B.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Ms B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman