Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council looked into a report about anti social behaviour. This is because it is unlikely we would be able to add value to the Council’s response. Complaints specifically about the management of housing association properties should be directed to the Housing Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Miss A, complains the Council failed to take adequate action in relation to an anti social behaviour (ASB) complaint she made. Miss A feels the Council’s failure to take robust action against a noisy neighbour meant she had to continue living in difficult circumstances and the Council ought to change the way it looks into these complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss A and the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.
5. Miss A commented on a draft decision and I considered all of her points before making this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss A was experiencing problems with her downstairs neighbour and reported this to the Council. The Council agreed to look into this but did not issue a noise abatement notice as Miss A feels it should have.
7. As Miss A and her neighbour are both housing association tenants we are unable to consider whether the Council should have pursued a tenancy complaint. This is because complaints about the management of social housing should be directed to the Housing Ombudsman. However, we would be able to consider how the Council considered an ASB complaint.
8. The Council has said Miss A’s ASB complaint was taken seriously and it considered whether there was scope for a noise nuisance complaint. The Council listened to the noise from Miss A’s neighbour’s flat both in person and on recordings. Whilst it agreed noise could be heard, the Council did not feel this constituted a statutory nuisance and so no further action was taken.
9. The Council did not issue any notices to Miss A’s neighbour but it did make recommendations to the housing association about how they could prevent noise travelling between flats.
10. I can appreciate it must have been very upsetting for Miss A to be told the noise did not constitute a statutory nuisance when it was clearly bothering her, but there is no evidence of fault with the way the Council reached its decision.
11. Although the problem was never resolved for her, Miss A has now moved to a different property so she is no longer experiencing issues with the neighbour in question. Even if I could see evidence of fault with the Council’s handling of Miss A's ASB complaint, my view is a full investigation would be unlikely to provide a different outcome for Miss A.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided we should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated her report of ASB and a full investigation would be unlikely to achieve any more for Miss A as she has now moved to a different property. If Miss A wants to complain about the management of the housing association property, she would need to direct this to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman